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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the result flow: if the result is 'action_required', the user is given a next.url or a re-call with fields.confirmToken. It also mentions the dependency on get_business for action ids and fields. This provides useful behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not cover, though it doesn't address potential side effects or errors.

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 sentences, each packed with essential information: scope, source for ids/fields, how to pass fields, and handling the action_required result. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's generic nature (any action) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the main workflow: obtaining ids/fields, passing them, and handling the typical 'action_required' result. It doesn't enumerate all possible actions or error cases, but the examples and conditional handling provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining where to get valid action ids and fields (from get_business) and clarifies the use of confirmToken for gated actions. This supplements the schema's basic parameter descriptions without redundancy.

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 the tool's function: 'Perform any non-booking action a business supports' with a concrete verb and resource. It lists examples (request_quote, place_order, etc.) and differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding booking actions, which are covered by sibling tools like book_appointment and check_availability.

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 on when to use the tool: 'any non-booking action' and points to get_business for valid action ids. It also gives conditional guidance for handling 'action_required' results. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like book_appointment for booking actions, though the sibling list implies this.

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