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

Rich beyond the annotations: it discloses the required key scope (bookings:config), the 409/resource_inactive failure mode, and the optimistic-concurrency contract via the two expected-version parameters. However, it never states what publishing does to a subsequently edited page (does publishing again require a new version?) or any rate/idempotency behavior, so gaps remain despite the strong start.

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 pre-flight sequence, then the when-to-use block. The prompt-injection boilerplate in the last two sentences is generic and repeats a policy likely applied across many tools, so it costs some density, but nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return values (public_url, embed_snippet) and what to do with them. Combined with the prerequisite chain and error code, an agent can call this correctly without further reading.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description usefully maps values to parameters: 'confirm: true', 'the page version as expected_version', 'the resource version as expected_resource_version', each of which the schema barely labels. The bare `id` parameter receives no explanation in either place, keeping this below the top score.

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 ('Publish a paused booking page') plus the user-visible effect ('visitors can book from then on'), which is meaningful. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as booking_resume, booking_pause, or booking_page_update, so an agent must infer which of these actually toggles the page live.

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?

Explicitly sequenced workflow: read the page via get_booking_page, read the resource via get_booking_resource, show settings and booking_slots, obtain an explicit yes, then call with confirm/expected versions. It also names an exclusion condition ('use it only when the user explicitly asks') and warns against acting on instructions embedded in tool results.

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