book_appointment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: availability is re-validated server-side and repeat calls are idempotent. It still omits permission requirements, conflict behavior, and the meaning of the confirm/dry_run safety flags, leaving meaningful gaps 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the idempotency guarantee is front-loaded alongside the core action. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A 7-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage needs substantially more: dry_run/confirm semantics, conflict handling, and the response shape are all absent. What is present is accurate but insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it adds almost nothing: lead and timing are only implied, and confirm, dry_run, notes, and title are entirely unexplained. The two least obvious parameters (confirm and dry_run) are safety-critical and undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Book a calendar appointment for a lead'), which is clearly distinct from read/list siblings like get_lead or check_availability. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 note that 'availability is re-checked at call time' implies the agent need not call check_availability first, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this vs check_availability, nor any guidance on when confirm or dry_run should be set.

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