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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotence (idempotentHint=false), open-world behavior, and non-destructiveness. The description adds that a new code is sent to the contact given at booking, which is useful side-effect context, but it does not explain whether previous codes are invalidated, rate limits, or delivery channel details beyond annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact example, front-loaded with the usage condition and caution. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted wording.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is mostly complete for invocation. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage, the missing definitions for status_token and market leave a meaningful gap for an agent that must supply those values correctly.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides only a bare example with reservation_number and status_token, but does not define what status_token is, how it is obtained, or what the optional market parameter does. The example gives minimal orientation but falls well short of explaining the three parameters.

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 ('Sends a new code') and resource ('confirmation code'), and scopes it to the case where the user did not receive the code or it expired. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool (e.g., confirm_reservation_code) for contrast, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use ('user did not receive the 6-digit code... or it expired') and when-not-to-use ('do not call it unprompted'). It does not name alternative tools or explain what to do instead if the code is already valid, so alternatives are implied rather than explicit.

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