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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: confirmation SLA of 1 business day, the crucial state distinction that the booking is 'requested' not 'booked' until confirmed, permitted scheduling windows and lead times, and that dryRun previews. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before firing a non-idempotent, open-world mutation.

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 but front-loaded: the action, the proposal constraints, the confirmation state, and the identity fallback all land in one compact block with no filler sentences. The telegraphic phrasing ('pass the person's own name, email, phone, address and scope') reads a little clipped but wastes no words.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering returns, the description carries the timing rules, state semantics, and identity fallback. It does not mention prerequisites such as service-area or license checks that sibling tools exist for, which is a minor gap for an open-world mutation.

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 44% for 9 parameters, but the description compensates well: it explains the quoteLink-vs-identity branch (including that quoteLink substitutes for name/email/phone/address/scope) and adds real constraint detail for proposedTimes (1-5 entries, 24h-60d out, Mon-Fri 8-4 or Sat 9-12 Pacific) that the schema only labels as 'ISO 8601 with offset'.

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?

Specific verb (request) plus specific resource (on-site walkthrough), with the interaction model spelled out (proposals → Kolmo confirms within 1 business day). No sibling tool performs this action, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 clear conditional guidance: with quoteLink use the link, without it pass the person's own name/email/phone/address/scope, and use dryRun to preview. It doesn't name explicit exclusions or a competing sibling (e.g. submit_contact_request) to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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