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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful workflow constraint (call before exposing booking_url) but says nothing about data freshness, per-location variation, or return shape.

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 sentences: a dense field enumeration followed by concrete usage intents. No filler, and the returned-attribute list is front-loaded, though the opening noun phrase is slightly list-like rather than leading with a verb.

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 carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by enumerating the policy dimensions. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the response structure remains unspecified.

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%, with both 'business' and 'location_id' fully documented including their source tool and default behavior. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond the schema, 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?

The description enumerates the exact policy attributes returned: cancellation window, approval requirement, booking horizon, deposit/prepayment, and late-cancel/no-show fees. That makes the resource content unmistakable and separates it from siblings like find_slots or list_services, though no explicit verb ('returns') is used.

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?

It gives concrete caller intents ('can I cancel?', 'do I pay a deposit?') and a sequencing rule: check this before handing over booking_url. No explicit when-not or named alternative is offered, but the usage context is clear.

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