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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds the traits that actually matter: a 20-minute hold, booking confirmed only on payment, deposit credited to the final bill, and refunds at the business's discretion. It also supplies the disclosure script the agent must read to the homeowner, which is behavior no annotation or schema field conveys.

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?

Four short sentences with the action front-loaded, then the data-collection requirement, then the hold semantics, then the customer script. Every sentence carries content, though the script clause reads as imperative copy rather than tool documentation.

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 7-parameter, 6-required mutation with no output schema, key details are missing: what the call returns (a link URL? a hold identifier? an expiry?), and no statement of permission or business-side requirements. The two-phase hold/pay model is well covered, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains intent for four of seven fields (name, phone, address, problem) as things to ask the homeowner, but leaves business_id, slot_start and the optional email entirely unexplained — notably the format and source of slot_start, which is the parameter most likely to be malformed.

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?

"Hold a time for the homeowner and get a card payment link for the deposit" names a specific two-part action on a specific resource. It is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools get_business, get_open_times and search_businesses, which cannot hold time or produce a payment link.

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?

Provides genuine sequencing guidance: collect name, phone, service address and problem description before invoking, which implies this runs after get_open_times yields a slot. It does not explicitly name get_open_times as the prerequisite alternative, so the agent must infer that step.

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