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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the idempotency behavior (same key returns same appointment), states that login/registration is required, and discloses that no real business is contacted. This is especially valuable for a mutating sandbox tool.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: sandbox scope, approval precondition, idempotency behavior, and isolation from real operations. Important constraints are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the critical behavioral context: sandbox mode, approval requirement, idempotency, and no real-world effects. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the 'same appointment' phrasing gives a usable expectation.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, most parameters are already documented, and the description adds meaning for idempotency_key and reinforces the user_approved precondition. Only hold_id lacks direct documentation, but its role is inferable from the 'converts a hold' context.

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 action (converts a hold into a sandbox appointment) and a clear resource, which distinguishes it from siblings like sandbox_hold_slot and sandbox_my_bookings. The title and description together leave no doubt about what the tool does.

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 gives a concrete precondition: call only after the user has explicitly approved, with user_approved=true. It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'converts a hold' wording and sibling names make the intended sequence clear.

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