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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/non-readonly, and the description adds the timer of the effect ('leaves the catalogue and search at once'), the authorization restriction, and the reversal path via recall. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with audience restriction, then effect, then the routing alternative. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

Covers authorization, immediate side effect, and recovery path for a destructive two-param tool with no output schema. It stops short of describing what happens to existing bookings or what the call returns, which would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented in the schema (reason length bounds and audience, business_id source). The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (hide a business from clients) and states the concrete effect: it leaves the catalogue and search immediately. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling op_decide_application, which handles returning a business to review.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (complaints, ownership dispute), when-not (only for the Awning team, only on the operator's explicit instruction), and an alternative for the inverse operation (op_decide_application with recall). An agent has no inference left to do about routing.

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