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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: €30 charge per side, no-show credit/forfeit rules, that the call only stores a proposal, that nothing happens until confirmation on welance.com/directory, and that the result includes the review link. This is exactly the kind of mutation-side-effect detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action and caller role, then packs the key financial and confirmation behavior into a short, information-dense description. There is no wasted text.

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?

Covers the financial consequences, no-show rules, proposal-only nature, external confirmation requirement, and result content. With annotations already covering safety and idempotency hints and no output schema present, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 33%, but the description meaningfully explains bookingId as the booking context and slotId as one of the client's offered slots. The remaining parameter, summary, has its own schema description, so the combined coverage is strong even though the description itself does not describe it.

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?

States a specific action (propose accepting a slot) scoped to the team on an existing booking, using bookingId and the client's offered slotId. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_booking and read_booking without needing the schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the usage context: the caller is the team on a booking and is accepting one of the client's offered slots. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of 5 but gives enough context to select it correctly.

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