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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=truecher, and the description elaborates meaningfully: retries with the same key will never create a second booking, and the backend re-validates price, slot, schedule, and identity before confirming. This adds context beyond the structured hints.

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 description is four tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then delivers retry semantics, backend validation, and return values, with each sentence earning its place.

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?

The description covers workflow timing, retry behavior, validation, and returns booking_reference, time, and total, which is important since there is no output schema. The omission of session_id and lack of explicit alternative tool comparisons are the main gaps in an otherwise complete description.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It effectively explains confirmation_id, sms_code, and idempotency_key, but it never mentions session_id, an optional parameter that remains ambiguous despite its regex pattern. This is a clear gap but not a complete failure.

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?

The description starts with a strong verb ('Creates') and a precise resource ('confirmed SzuruSzuru booking'), conditioned on a prepared confirmation_id and an SMS code. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like prepare_booking and verify_phone_code, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

The description sets a clear usage context: call after the customer provides the 6-digit SMS codeaging, and for a previously prepared confirmation_id. It also gives explicit retry guidance with idempotency_key, though it does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or which sibling to fall back to.

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