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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that data is LIVE and the return shape, but says nothing about rate limits, staleness, or failure modes for an external live-data call.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, return fields are enumerated, and the sequencing instruction is last, which is the correct order for an agent skimming top-down.

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?

Covers purpose, inputs, output shape, and sequencing for a 5-param read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage. Slightly short of 5 because it does not mention any latency, caching, or freshness caveats that matter for a LIVE external availability call.

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 all five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions operator_id provenance, which mirrors the schema's own note, and adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get), resource (LIVE products, pricing and availability), scope (for a live-bookable operator for specific dates), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from bk_search_operators (search) and bk_cart_add (mutation).

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 routes the agent: 'Call this (using an operator_id from bk_search_operators) before bk_cart_add.' Both the prerequisite source and the next step are named, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus siblings.

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