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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining idempotency semantics ('retrying with the same key returns the same request') and enumerating the three outcomes with required follow-up actions, including the non-obvious link_given case where nothing is sent and the agent must hand over whatsapp_url. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the precondition first and the outcome branches packed into one tight sentence. Slightly crowded for a single paragraph but no sentence is filler.

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 9-parameter mutation with a nested customer object and no output schema, the description covers the outcome shapes and the follow-up call, which is what an agent most needs. Minor gaps remain around what `note` is for and what happens on validation or channel failures.

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 67% schema coverage, the description compensates by mapping the core payload in plain language ('what, when, how many, which branch and the person's name and contact') and explaining the required idempotency_key. It leaves `note` and the `whatsapp_url` return unused, so not fully exhaustive.

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 ('Sends' a request to the verified owner) and the title explicitly distinguishes it from a booking ('not a booking until the owner confirms'). An agent can tell this apart from book_slot and place_order without opening a 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('For a business that takes requests through Versum... with Telegram, e-mail or WhatsApp') and a next step ('Then poll request_status'). It does not name book_slot or place_order as alternatives, so the boundary against sibling tools is only implied by the title.

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