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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: consent must be given by the customer themselves within 12 months, stop-list and Washington exclusions, a 9 AM–8 PM local calling window, per-job and per-customer rate limits, and the fact that refusal returns a reason. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action and the three purposes before the constraints. Every clause (consent, window, rate limits, role) carries real information, though the run-on constraint tail could be split for scanability.

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 not be described. Given that, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: preconditions per purpose, consent/geo/time/rate gates, failure behavior, and the required role.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining the purpose enum and revealing the conditional requirement that visit_id is needed for appointment_reminder even though it is not in the required list. shop_id and job_id are left unexplained, but their meaning is self-evident from the tool name.

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 ('Ask for one AI call to the job's customer') and enumerates the three call purposes with their prerequisites. It also draws a boundary ('No sales or payment calls'), but never names the closest siblings (phone_outboundCalls, phone_sendText) to say which one to pick 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?

Explicitly ties each purpose to a precondition: appointment_reminder needs a future visit_id, on_my_way needs a visit today with an assigned worker, job_status needs an open job. It adds exclusions (no sales/payment), the role gate ('Owner or office'), and the exact refusal conditions, leaving nothing to inference.

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