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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the auth requirement ('signed in to Awning'), reversibility ('Temporarily'), and the reassurance that existing bookings are not destroyed — an important nuance given the destructiveHint.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the audience constraint, then the action and its effect. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with an output-schema-free response and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, audience, parameter meaning, and the side effect on existing bookings. Nothing critical is missing; response format is the only unaddressed detail and is not needed here.

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 50% (business_id is documented, paused is not), but the description fully compensates by defining the paused semantics (true=stop, false=resume) and by conveying the conditional nature of business_id via its role. Both parameters' meaning is clear from schema+description together.

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 states a specific verb+resource (temporarily stop/resume taking new bookings) and scopes the audience ('Only for business owners signed in to Awning'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_booking, owner_suspend_business, and owner_cancel_booking. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 states a clear precondition (business owners signed in) and both use cases (paused=true to stop, paused=false to resume), and clarifies that existing bookings are unaffected, which disambiguates it from cancel_booking. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for the 'cancel existing bookings instead' case, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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