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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the shape and breadth of the payload (special days, computed open-now status, closed periods for orders). It does not address data freshness or how 'open now' is evaluated, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the routing hint to available_times; every clause names a concrete return component. Slightly packed, but no filler.

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 conveying return contents, and it does so by enumerating all the major data groups. Remaining gaps (format, whether hours are timezone-local) are minor for a read-only lookup.

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 100% and the schema already explains that 'shop' is the value from find_shops and is unnecessary on a shop's own address endpoint. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 exactly what the tool returns: weekly hours, special days (holidays, closed days, changed hours), current open status, and per-day order-placement windows with closed periods. That granularity lets an agent distinguish it from available_times without guessing.

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 explicitly routes the agent to a sibling: "Use available_times for the exact times on a date," which implies this tool is for the general weekly/special-day overview. It stops short of stating exclusions relative to other shop-metadata siblings like get_shop_info, so it isn't fully exhaustive.

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