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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value on top by disclosing slot rechecks, plan expiry, dual link types, and that no court is booked. It stops short of saying what happens if a recheck fails or how long the plan lives.

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 tight sentences with the usage gate front-loaded and no filler. Each clause contributes a distinct fact: when to use, what it does mechanically, and what it does not do.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need little explanation, and the description does flag the two link types. However, for a state-mutating tool with three required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the unexplained mode/age_confirmed/original_request inputs leave genuine gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — it explains only the 'one to three selected court options' cap on slot_ids. The mode enum (choose_one vs book_all) is a genuine behavioural fork and age_confirmed and original_request are entirely unexplained, leaving required inputs ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('creates an expiring Zarvo plan') plus concrete outputs ('separate guest and private organiser links') and an explicit boundary ('does not book a court'). That boundary cleanly separates it from the booking-oriented siblings such as get_booking_handoff.

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?

Opens with an explicit gate: 'Use this only when the user explicitly wants to organise one to three selected court options with other people.' It implies the prerequisite of already-selected slots but never names the alternative tool (get_booking_handoff) or states what to do instead when the user does want to book.

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