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

It states the tool performs no booking and sends no email, matching the readOnly/idempotent annotations without contradiction. It additionally discloses the required human-approval step and the handoff of normalized booking, requestId, and confirmationToken to the next call, which annotations do not convey.

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-load the purpose, add the non-side-effect qualifier, and give the exact follow-up call. There is no redundant or filler 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?

The workflow, output handoff, and safety profile are complete, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value details. The main gap is input parameter semantics for the many non-obvious fields, but the required fields are named and the purpose is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 20%, so the prose needed to compensate, but it only maps vaguely to 'guest details' and 'selected time.' It does not explain slug, slotId, purpose, timezone, meetingType, or fieldAnswers, leaving most required parameters underdocumented; only requestId and meetingFormat are clarified in 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 names a specific action—validate guest details and selected time—and explicitly scopes it as 'without booking or sending email.' It also distinguishes preview_booking from the finalization sibling by prescribing book_meeting as the follow-up.

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 defines the correct workflow: preview first, show the summary to the guest, get explicit approval, and only then call book_meeting with the returned tokens. This clearly positions the tool as a pre-confirmation validation step relative to its siblings.

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