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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation. It adds the 3-attempt limit, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the schema, but doesn't discuss side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose ('Finish the booking') and add the key constraint (3 attempts) without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe return behavior. It also leaves verificationToken unexplained and doesn't state what happens on failure/success. The attempt limit is helpful, but the definition is incomplete for a tool that finalizes a booking.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explicitly covers smsCode ('6-digit code the customer received by SMS'), but verificationToken is only vaguely implied by 'per verification' and never named or explained. This leaves a required parameter underdocumented.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('Finish the booking') with the resource (booking) and the mechanism (6-digit SMS code). This distinguishes it from siblings like request_booking, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so not a 5.

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 implies the use case: after the customer has received the SMS code, the agent finishes the booking. It gives a clear condition for use (having the code) and a constraint (at most 3 attempts), but doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name the alternative.

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