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

With no annotations at all, the description does carry useful behavioral context: no payment is taken, the deposit is set by the owners, and a signed estimate follows a free survey. It still omits the important mechanics for a booking mutation — whether a record is created immediately, whether it can be cancelled or expires, and that contact details may be needed to confirm the hold.

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 filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (free, no payment) is front-loaded. It is perhaps over-compressed for a 10-parameter mutation, but no sentence is wasted.

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 10-parameter booking mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the commercial framing. An agent still cannot tell what it gets back, what happens after submission, or how to populate most of the inputs.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and adds nothing about any of them. Fields like flexible_dates, quote_id, from_zip/to_zip, and the contact_* group are left entirely undocumented, and method='reusing idempotency_key returns the same request' lives only in the schema.

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 the specific action (a free date-hold request) and the provider (Next Generation Movers), so an agent knows exactly what committing to this call means. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings get_quote or company_info, which keeps it below 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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of get_quote, nor any prerequisite such as 'call get_quote first and pass its quote_id'. The presence of a quote_id parameter hints at an ordering, but the description never says so.

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