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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false): it discloses that existing appointments are NOT cancelled, that the response counts them for follow-up, and that already-closed dates are skipped. It also surfaces the auth requirement (Admin role, locations:write), which annotations do not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant fact (side effects on appointments, idempotency, undo path, weekly alternative, auth scope). No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return behavior (the count of affected appointments) and the side effects, idempotency, undo path, and permissions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the per-parameter baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by clarifying that dates are interpreted in the location's local timezone and that each date becomes its own independent closure (which affects how removal works). It adds framing rather than new field-level detail, so it stays short of 5.

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 action and scope: closing the whole location on specific dates, in the location's local timezone, with concrete examples (holidays, shutdowns). It is clearly distinguished from the neighboring set_weekly_hours (recurring days), remove_closure (undo), and cancel_appointment (per-appointment), so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing is provided for every adjacent case: use set_weekly_hours for a recurring weekly closed day, use remove_closure to undo a single closure, and use cancel_appointment/reschedule_appointment to handle the appointments left behind. It also states the precondition of locations:write (Admin role).

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