Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations establish this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing concrete side effects: an INSERT into waiter_calls plus an admin push notification. It does not describe auth requirements or whether duplicate calls are collapsed, which the idempotentHint=false makes relevant.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then side effects, then the one parameter detail that matters. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is complete on the 'what happens' axis but incomplete on the 'what do I pass' axis for the two required identifiers. Adequate for the side-effect disclosure, insufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains the optional 'message' parameter (max 500 chars, visible to staff). The two required parameters, table_id and agent_session_id, get no explanation at all, leaving their format and source undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Flag a waiter to the table') that is clearly distinct from siblings such as request_bill or cancel_order. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those adjacent tools, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and by the note that staff see the message in the dashboard, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use request_bill instead for...' guidance. For a tool sitting next to request_bill and cancel_reservation, that routing help matters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.