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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that a hold 'blocks a real slot', discloses a rate limit ('three per client per ten minutes'), and specifies the response contents ('Answers the hold, the bid it was made from and... the customer's private booking link'). This is thorough behavioral transparency beyond what any schema could provide.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: the first gives the core action, the second the return shape, the third the critical constraint. No filler or redundancy; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, rate limits, and return values. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 for parameters is 100% and both 'bid' and 'session' have clear descriptions in the schema. The description only adds contextual framing ('from this session's round') rather than new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 action ('Hold the slot'), the resource ('one bid from this session's round'), the duration ('for ten minutes'), and the context ('before asking for details'). The phrase 'Never call it to browse' further differentiates it from search/browse sibling tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives a clear when-to-use signal ('before asking the person for their details') and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion ('Never call it to browse') alongside a budget warning ('three per client per ten minutes is the budget'). However, it does not name any alternative sibling tools, so the routing guidance is slightly less explicit than the top tier.

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