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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds crucial behavioral context: it is a real-world side effect ('REAL action'), requires explicit user consent via Telegram OAuth scoped to booking:write, and enforces a one-appointment-per-day limit. These are not captured in the annotations or schema.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the critical warning ('REAL action') and packs essential details (consent, format, constraint) into a compact structure. Every word earns 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?

For a real-world side-effecting tool, the description covers the essential aspects: action, consent/auth, parameter formats, and a key constraint. It lacks an explanation of the response/return value or failure modes, but given no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by giving exact formats: 'date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:MM)'. This adds concrete meaning to the parameters. It does not specify additional constraints like timezone or business hours, but the format guidance is valuable.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'creates a real appointment with the vertebrologist on the user's behalf.' This is a strong verb+resource pair, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'REAL action (not a simulation)' and the booking scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a real booking is needed and user consent has been obtained. It also notes constraints ('One appointment per day') and the OAuth requirement. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'reschedule' or 'cancel'.

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