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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower and the description still adds real context: the four availability states, that max vehicle length and persons are returned, and the non-obvious caveat that included_adults varies by event and category. It stops short of saying whether prices are per night, what currency, or how large a response can get.

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 first sentence front-loads purpose and the enumerated states; the second delivers the included_adults caveat, which is the highest-value detail. The appended German restatement duplicates the same content without adding information, costing some efficiency.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does list the states and the key fields (from-price, included_adults, max vehicle length, persons). Missing details such as currency, price period, and response shape for multiple categories keep it from being fully complete.

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 event_slug (sourced from list_events) and the optional category_key are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantics for category_key — it does not say whether omitting it returns all categories or how filtering changes the response — so baseline 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 names a specific verb plus resource (availability and from-prices per pitch category for one event) and enumerates the four possible states, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names the adjoining sibling get_price_estimate, which occupies nearby territory (pricing), so the boundary is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it for one event to see category-level availability and starting prices. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no route to alternatives such as get_price_estimate for an exact quote or create_reservation for booking.

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