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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningfully more: the required scope (locations:read, any member), the precise gating logic for acceptingBookings (weekly hours, active appointment type, active door), and the semantics of the problems field. This is behavior an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its return meaning, then use cases, then sibling routing. Dense with semicolons, but nearly every clause carries distinct information; only the parenthetical about doors is slightly tangential to invoking the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: acceptingBookings and problems are named and their meaning given. Combined with the auth scope and readiness preconditions, an agent has everything needed for a correct call and interpretation.

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% for the single locationId parameter, and the schema already says it comes from list_locations. The description adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail about locationId, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieves the public booking link (/book/{slug}) and the readiness state of a location's booking page. It also names the sibling it is not (get_location_setup) and clarifies the scope of what it returns, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Explicitly gives two use cases (share the link, check readiness) and routes the agent to the alternative for full configuration: 'for the full configuration behind it, use get_location_setup.' Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the right choice.

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