book_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses cost per call, payment method (USDC over x402 to x402-tablebook), that the hold is refundable, and what is returned (confirmed reservation, cancel token, refund terms, calendar invite, artifact, payment receipt). It lacks detail on failure handling or cancellation process, but provides significant transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by return details and cost. No wasted words.

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?

For a booking tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers the return value and payment specifics. It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but the core aspects for invocation are present.

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 each parameter has a clear meaning. The description adds context about payment rails and cost but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what schema provides. Hence baseline 3.

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 states the tool books a restaurant table with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling find_tables by focusing on the booking action. It also mentions the return value, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies use when a restaurant table needs to be reserved, distinct from find_tables which searches. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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