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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the reservation marks the gift as taken for all guests, and reserver_name is always persisted server-side even for anonymous reservations and only hidden from other guests' view. It does not address re-reserving an already-reserved gift or error behavior.

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 purpose followed by a compact Args block with one line per parameter. The parenthetical about server-side storage is slightly verbose but carries genuine information, so little is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, privacy behavior, and the side effect on other guests. Missing only edge-case behavior such as reserving an already-reserved gift and the return/confirmation 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% and the schema carries no enums, so the description must carry the load — and it does: it explains gift_id, states reserver_name is mandatory and always stored server-side, and enumerates privacy_mode values ('full_name' default, 'initials', 'anonymous') with their visibility meaning.

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 ('Rezervă un cadou') plus the scope and business consequence ('marchează-l ca luat, ca alți invitați să nu-l mai cumpere dublu'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like create_gift or unreserve_gift without reading 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 rationale ('so other guests don't buy it twice') implies when to use it, and the args section frames the expected inputs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the obvious alternative unreserve_gift for undoing a reservation.

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