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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral context: incomplete data is accepted and missing fields are prompted for in conversation, which is non-obvious for a create tool. But it says nothing about side effects, permission requirements, conflict handling with existing reservations, or what the call returns.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the core action is stated first and the incomplete-data behavior follows. Slightly more structure (e.g., naming prerequisites) would be needed for a 5.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important quirk (partial input accepted) but leaves out return behavior, conflict/availability implications, and any permission context. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (dates, contact fields, vehicle_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or inter-parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Vytvoří novou rezervaci' – creates a new reservation), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as check_availability or calculate_load_compatibility, which could plausibly be confused with booking-flow steps.

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?

It implies the conversational context ('chybějící pole si vyžádá od uživatele v konverzaci'), which tells the agent it can call this even with partial data – useful implied guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over check_availability or what prerequisites must hold before creating a booking.

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