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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses that the restaurant is not notified until the confirmation link is clicked, the link expires in 24 hours, and the confirmation link is not returned to the agent. No contradictions exist.

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?

The description is information-dense with no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds critical context (e.g., 'THE RESTAURANT IS NOT NOTIFIED YET', 'Tell the user to check their inbox'). The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., success message). However, it implies the outcome (request held, email sent). For full completeness, a brief note on return value would be beneficial, but it's not critical given the nature of the tool.

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 good descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that the email must be real and the confirmation link is sent there, which reinforces the parameter's role. However, it does not add entirely new information beyond 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 clearly states the tool requests a table at a restaurant, using specific verbs and distinguishing it from a confirmed booking (sibling create_booking). It also emphasizes this is a request, not a booking, which differentiates it from other tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (to request a table), what to tell the user (check inbox), and provides constraints (use a real email, link expires in 24 hours). It also differentiates from confirmed bookings by stating 'this is a request, not a confirmed booking'.

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