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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral details: finds a slot, creates a Google Calendar event with a Meet link, emails the invite, and captures the lead if no slot is available. It also documents accepted input formats for requested_window, ensuring the agent knows the tool's actions and constraints.

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 well-structured and concise: first paragraph states purpose and behavior, second paragraph details the requested_window parameter. No filler; every sentence adds value.

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 booking tool with no output schema and rich side effects, this description is notably complete. It covers the full flow: scheduling, calendar event creation, emailing, fallback lead handling, alternative tool usage, and input format nuances. The agent has enough to invoke the tool 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%, and the description compensates for the most complex parameter (requested_window) by detailing its accepted formats. However, other parameters (prospect_email, prospect_name, prospect_org, project_brief) are not elaborated, though their names are reasonably self-explanatory. Partial compensation only.

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: 'Book a 30-minute strategy session with TESSA on Kevin Callen's calendar.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by stating 'directory firms use request_introduction instead.'

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 explicit guidance on when not to use the tool and points to an alternative: 'TESSA-only tool — directory firms use request_introduction instead.' It also explains fallback behavior, adding context for when this tool is appropriate.

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