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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully clarifies the mutation is transient rather than permanent: 'Holds expire automatically', plus the duration window (default 300 s, max 600 s). It also discloses that pricing returned is final, which is behaviorally meaningful for a price-check step. It doesn't cover failure semantics (what happens when the requested seats are already held).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and price outcome, then the sibling handoff, then expiry/API mapping. No filler and no repetition of schema prose.

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 14-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the critical chaining parameter, expiry behavior and the price return, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error/conflict behavior and what exactly the hold response contains beyond the id and price.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 14 parameters. The description adds workflow-level meaning the schema lacks: that the holdDurationSeconds window is bounded and defaulted, and that previousHoldId is the mechanism for chaining a hold into the subsequent booking call.

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 concrete verb+resource ('temporarily reserve the seats/resources for a draft booking') and adds the secondary outcome ('get the FINAL price, taxes and amount payable'), which cleanly separates it from bookeo_create_booking. An agent can identify the tool's role 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?

Explicitly positions itself as 'the recommended step before bookeo_create_booking' and states the handoff ('pass the returned hold id as previousHoldId there'), which gives clear when-to-use routing. It stops short of stating when a hold can be skipped (e.g. pure price enquiry or read-only availability checks).

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