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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: step 1 saves nothing, returns a preview and a confirm_token valid for 10 minutes, and step 2 returns a Calendly link and passes details to CANOPY's sales team. These details clarify side effects and the human-confirmation workflow.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then efficiently explains the two steps in order. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation, with no redundant or filler text.

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 complex two-step booking tool, the description fully explains the workflow, token lifetime, human confirmation requirement, and sales-team handoff. An output schema exists and covers return values, but the description still leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains only confirm_token and vaguely refers to "same details"; it leaves key fields such as location_id, slot_start, tour_type, leave_empty, and conversation_id unexplained.

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: "Books a tour time from get_tour_slots." It also clarifies that the tool implements a two-step booking flow, making the core action unambiguous to an agent.

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 gives clear step-by-step usage guidance: call step 1 without confirm_token to preview, show the preview to the person, and only call step 2 with the same details and token after the person agrees. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives such as request_tour, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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