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

Annotations establish a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: it creates the job, the vendor texts the customer within minutes to pick a day, and the caller must not promise an appointment time. These are behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences with no waste, front-loaded with the action and scope, then preconditions, outcome, and a constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, downstream behavior, and a key constraint well, and annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of noting what to do when the location is outside the service area, where check_service_area would be the relevant sibling.

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 only 46%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It reinforces the semantics of the two consent booleans (agreeing to book and to be texted) but says nothing about zip, phone, appliance_type, or problem, leaving the coverage gap partially unaddressed.

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 (Book) and resource (in-home appliance repair) plus geographic scope (Tennessee or Louisiana), which cleanly separates it from siblings like check_service_area and diagnose_appliance_problem. An agent can identify this as the booking action 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only call after the person has agreed to book and to be texted') and a behavioral constraint ('Never promise an appointment time'). It doesn't name sibling tools or route between alternatives, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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