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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that the created page starts paused as a draft and is not public until booking_page_publish, names the auth scope (bookings:config), and specifies failure behavior (a flagged text on a free site yields check_failed 422). Those are the operational facts an agent needs before calling a write tool, none of which annotations 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the draft-state caveat, then the parameter reference, then the workflow pointer. The dense settings list is justified by the 40% schema coverage, though the generic '[When to use]' safety paragraph is boilerplate that could be trimmed for a tool that already states its own prerequisites.

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 create tool with no output schema, nested settings object, and 5 parameters, the description covers creation semantics, draft/publish lifecycle, required settings with validation rules, error behavior, and the follow-up validation step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates thoroughly: form is the form key from list_forms, resource is the id from booking_status resources[].id, and every settings field is enumerated with constraints — duration_min must be a multiple of 5, weekly accepts a concrete {mon:[["09:00","17:00"]]} shape, max_per_day 1-20, max_active_per_email 1-10, date formats YYYY-MM-DD. Only site/redirect_path rely on schema text, and those are already described there.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a booking page on an existing resource') plus the required key scope 'bookings:config', which immediately separates it from sibling mutation tools like booking_page_update and booking_page_publish. An agent can tell what it creates and where without opening the schema.

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 '[When to use]' block gives an explicit gate — only call when the user has explicitly asked — plus a prompt-injection exclusion, and the body prescribes a workflow ('Check the open slots with booking_slots before publishing'). What it does not do is contrast with booking_page_update (when to create vs. modify an existing page), which is the most likely sibling confusion.

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