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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds crucial context: it's a request not confirmation, no payment collected upfront, deposit may follow. Lacks disclosure of what happens on failure or request lifetime, but substantial value added.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose, cross-references, and key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place; front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given 9 parameters with low schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (request nature, payment) but doesn't explain all parameters or failure modes. Still sufficient for an agent to understand the main flow and when to use it.

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 22%, so more parameter semantics would help. Description mentions dates via check_room_availability and city/countryCode from search_venues, implying required fields like location. But doesn't explain the roles of restaurantId, roomFacilityTypeId, guestName, guestPhone, etc. Baseline 3 given the low coverage and minimal compensation.

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+resource ('Submit a stay booking request') and distinguishes it from siblings by referencing check_room_availability and search_venues. The 'REQUEST not instant confirmation' framing is precise.

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 names alternatives (check_room_availability for free dates, search_venues for city/countryCode) and states the condition. Makes clear this is a request subject to venue review, unlike potential instant booking siblings.

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