book_lunch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only explains parameters and does not mention side effects (e.g., whether booking overwrites an existing one), required permissions, or other behavioral traits like idempotency.

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?

The description is well-structured with a leading sentence and a list of arguments. However, it is somewhat verbose (8 lines) and could be more concise by merging some parameter explanations.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context such as success/error outcomes, idempotency, or constraints (e.g., lunch must be in the future).

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining each parameter in detail, including format examples (e.g., date as DD-MM-YYYY) and notes on defaults (e.g., price of 0 keeps template price). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

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 'Book office lunch for a date,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'book_cab' or 'cancel_lunch', which would strengthen purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., cancel_lunch, list_lunch_bookings). There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where the tool should not be used.

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