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

Annotations already convey destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description usefully clarifies that the operation hides rather than deletes, and adds real-world trigger examples. However, it does not disclose consequences such as reversibility, impact on existing bookings, or what clients will see afterward.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the audience restriction, states the core behavior, and provides examples. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description provides a solid operational picture: who may use it, what it does, and when it is appropriate. It could still mention downstream effects, but given the low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not explain business_id or reason beyond the raw schema. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the reason field's purpose and expected content are left unspecified.

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 clearly states the resource (a business), the action (hide from clients), and gives concrete trigger examples (complaints, ownership dispute). It distinguishes this from a generic suspension by emphasizing client-facing visibility, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like owner_pause.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (complaints, disputes) and adds an eligibility restriction ('Only for the Awning team'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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