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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material context: there is no undo, and the call will REFUSE under two specific conditions. This tells the agent both the consequence and the failure modes, well beyond what the structured hints provide.

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?

The irreversible-action warning is correctly front-loaded, but the middle sentences shift into assistant-facing talk-track instructions ("Say which offering and that there is no undo") rather than tool behavior. The trailing "Never assume a currency" is confusing noise for a tool with no currency parameter, diluting an otherwise tight description.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need no explanation. The description supplies the preconditions, irreversibility, and confirmation flow an agent needs; only the irrelevant currency remark and absent sibling routing keep it from full completeness.

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 both `business` and `bookingUnitId` are already documented in the schema. The description's "Say which offering" hint gestures at bookingUnitId but adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Removes a bookable offering") that is unambiguous against siblings like get_booking_unit or update_booking_unit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from delete_product, but the resource name and title make the target clear.

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 concrete preconditions for refusal (offering still on the page, bookings ahead of it) and prescribes a confirmation workflow before calling. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., update_booking_unit when a modify is intended), so it is strong context without full alternative routing.

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