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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the restaurant is NOT notified yet, the request is held, a confirmation email is sent, the link expires in 24 hours, the link is deliberately not returned to the agent, and confirmation happens out of band. This goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every subsequent sentence adds critical operational detail (notification delay, email expiration, non-return of link). No word is wasted.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's workflow, side effects, and critical caveats. It explains the multi-step confirmation process and sets user expectations about what happens after the request, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema, particularly for the email parameter: 'Use a real address belonging to the person you are acting for' and clarifies that the link is sent there. It also reinforces that requestedAt must be in the future, adding context to the workflow.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Request a table at a restaurant.' It also differentiates from siblings like create_booking by explicitly stating this is a request, not a confirmed booking, and that the restaurant confirms out of band.

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 gives clear context: it explains the request flow (held until confirmation email link is clicked) and contrasts with a confirmed booking. It also instructs the user to use a real address belonging to the person they act for. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for confirmed bookings, though the differentiation is implicit.

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