Prepare a booking (step 1 of 2)

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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: a Chrome window opens, sign-in may be required, the token is single-use with a 5-minute TTL, and each of the four return statuses is spelled out. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false (it mutates a form but books nothing).

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-loads the core constraint in the first clause, then enumerates return statuses compactly. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: status names, token lifetime and single-use semantics, and the user-handoff condition. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With only 57% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the plan parameter's role in the choose_plan loop and by naming the cases (card, code, unknown field) that fall to needs_user. It adds little on date/time/party, but those are self-evident and pattern-constrained.

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 ('Fills Tabelog's booking form') with the crucial scope boundary 'up to, never through, the final button' and repeats 'Books nothing'. Combined with the title 'step 1 of 2', an agent can cleanly separate it from confirm_booking.

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?

Implicitly routes the agent: 'call again with plan' for choose_plan, 'the user finishes' for needs_user, and 'Books nothing' signals that confirm_booking is the next step. It never names the sibling confirm_booking explicitly, so one inference is left.

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