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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'LIVE' nature of the data and the return structure, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Get LIVE...') and compresses the return format and workflow into a tight, readable structure.

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?

For a simple read-only availability tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return shape (product list with price, max_guests, available flag) and the pipeline position (after operator search, before cart add). This is sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so each parameter's purpose is already documented. The description adds meaningful context for operator_id by directing the agent to source it from bk_search_operators, and it aligns check_in/check_out with 'specific dates.' This goes slightly beyond the schema.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'LIVE products, pricing and availability for a Bookeasy operator for specific dates.' It also names the exact return fields (product_id, price, max_guests, available flag), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like bk_search_operators and bk_cart_add.

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?

The description provides explicit workflow context: 'using an operator_id from bk_search_operators' and 'before bk_cart_add.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool in the sequence, though it does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives beyond this implied chain.

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