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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description goes beyond them by explaining the real side effect profile: it only starts a request, the person completes it in WRDO, and nothing is booked until the business confirms. It does not cover link lifetime or any call preconditions, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable and tightly written. The final two sentences overlap ('never books, charges or creates an account' vs 'nothing is booked until the business confirms'), so one clause is slightly redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain the return value, and it covers purpose, boundaries and the handoff flow well. Minor gaps remain around link validity and whether an existing request affects the call.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'what', 'when' and 'business_id' with examples and length limits. The description only adds that the business dimension is optional and single-business, which is marginal beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and deliverable: 'Get a link the person opens to ask WRDO for a quote, booking or order.' It scopes the resource ('optionally from one business') and names the sibling that supplies business_id (search_local_businesses), so it is distinguishable from the four read-only lookup 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?

Clear context for use: hand a person a link so they can start a quote/booking/order in WRDO. It also gives a strong negative boundary ('never books, charges or creates an account'), which implies when not to expect follow-through, but it never names an alternative tool or a precondition for calling it.

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