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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral boundary (never confirms or schedules), which is valuable. However, it omits other potential side effects like notifications, permissions, or idempotency, but for a creation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second clarifies constraints.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. With 13 parameters and no annotations, it fails to explain the meaning or usage of most fields, particularly the slugs and scheduling-related params. The mention of contact method is partial and conflicting with the schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name' and 'at least one contact method' but only implicitly, and does not explain most of the 13 parameters (coach_slug, service_slug, requested_start, etc.). Additionally, it contradicts the schema by requiring a contact method when the schema only requires name, which could mislead an agent.

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 clearly states the tool creates a request-first lead for an online vocal lesson, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_lesson_options, search_lesson_availability, voice_school_info) by explicitly noting this does not confirm a lesson or create a schedule item, setting it apart from search/list/info tools.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this to create a lead, not to confirm a lesson or schedule. It gives a negative constraint ('never confirms a lesson or creates a private schedule item') but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of full when-to-use guidance.

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