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

Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It explains critical behavioral outcomes, such as the deposit being 'refund[ed] in full automatically' and the review process if a conflict exists.

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 three sentences are highly efficient, starting with the core function, stating the major consequence, and concluding with the necessary operational exception. No sentence is superfluous.

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 that there are no annotations or an output schema, the description provides maximum completeness by explaining the operational workflow, financial consequences, and contradiction handling for this specific report.

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?

The description elevates the value of the 'statement' parameter by defining its conditional use: 'Used only if the shop says it arrived.' This critical context makes the parameter meaningful despite the low overall schema coverage.

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 defines the tool's purpose: reporting that a booked shop did not show up. It specifies the outcome (deposit refunded) and clearly distinguishes this specific 'no-show' report from general booking management siblings.

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?

It provides strong conditional usage guidance by stating, 'If the shop already recorded that it arrived, Doing Work reviews it first.' This guides the agent on when the optional statement parameter might be needed versus when the system handles the refund automatically.

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