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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds real behavioral value: 'Nothing is sent to the customer' (side-effect disclosure), the default per-call confirmation and its opt-out, and the Cotlet API key/auth requirement. These go beyond what the structured fields convey, though the 'reaches other people' warning sits a bit in tension with 'nothing is sent to the customer.'

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but 'Mark a reservation as checked in' and 'Marks one reservation as checked in' restate the same fact in adjacent sentences, and the confirmation/auth boilerplate occupies roughly half the text. Some sentences do not fully earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers action, side effects, confirmation behavior, and auth needs for a single-parameter mutation tool. It is nearly complete, only lacking explicit routing relative to the other check-in tools in the catalog.

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% and the single parameter is documented with its source tools (get_class_roster, list_customer_reservations). The description restates that a reservation_id is required but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource ('Mark a reservation as checked in') and adds scope detail that waitlisted customers cannot be checked in. It does not explicitly name how it differs from sibling check-in tools (momence_check_in_customer, pushpress_check_in_member), but the reservation-based scope is clear.

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?

Provides an implicit precondition (must have a reservation_id, so waitlisted customers are excluded) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The reader must infer context from the scope constraint rather than being told when this tool applies.

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