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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors: the booking is not immediately confirmed because a manager confirms the day and time, and personal-data consent must be collected before sending. That adds real context about the asynchronous, human-reviewed nature of the operation, which the annotations alone (idempotent, non-destructive, open-world) do not 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisites (manager confirmation, consent) following immediately. Every sentence carries operational 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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, that confirmation is deferred to a manager, and the consent gate. It does not say how or when the customer learns of confirmation, but the rich schema compensates for most remaining gaps.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, including consent, date formats, and the fillings limit. The description only reinforces the consent requirement and adds no format or dependency details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Записать заказчика на дегустацию начинок"), which clearly identifies a booking action for a tasting. It is distinguishable from informational siblings such as tasting_info or list_fillings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with submit_request, which may overlap.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — this is the tool for booking a tasting — and one prerequisite is stated: obtain the customer's consent before sending. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., when to use submit_request instead), and no exclusions or eligibility conditions are given.

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