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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: async_by_default execution with 'use get_outcome to retrieve result', approximate cost and latency, and the fallback routing through the SMB's native booking system, voice AI, or web form. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by compact example queries, then labeled WHEN TO USE/WHEN NOT TO USE, cost, latency, and execution sections. Every section earns its place and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects, multiple actions, async execution, and no output schema, this description covers prerequisites, exclusions, routing, and result retrieval via get_outcome. However, it does not specify what a successful call returns or how actions must be paired with action-critical parameters, leaving a modest but real completeness gap.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only demonstrates smb_id, action, and service in examples. Critically, the reschedule and cancel examples omit existing_appointment_id even though the schema marks it 'Required for reschedule/cancel', and requested_time/customer are never explained. An agent cannot reliably construct complete calls from this description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Availability lookup, hold, confirm, reschedule, or cancel appointments with an SMB.' It maps cleanly to the action enum and clearly differentiates this tool from sibling tools like find_business and get_outcome. The only minor wrinkle is that 'hold' and 'confirm' appear in prose but not in the enum, yet the purpose is still 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?

WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE are explicit: use for booking/rescheduling/canceling a specific appointment with a specific SMB, avoid bulk scheduling, and do not use without a verified smb_id — with direct pointers to find_business and verify_business. This gives the agent clear decision criteria and even names alternatives.

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