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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context: clear 'deletes the filter (any opening alerts again)' and set keeps 'only these fields', implying a wholesale replacement rather than a partial merge. That replacement semantics detail is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot convey, though permissions and error behavior are unstated.

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?

It is front-loaded with the default action and then walks set then clear, with no filler sentences. The density is high and the sentence lengths are long, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries information.

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 7-parameter, no-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mode semantics, what show returns (filters, matching openings, claim outcomes), and what clearing destroys. The main omission is any hint about failure modes or required fields per action, but the schema descriptions already label each field as set/show/clear-specific.

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 the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by mapping a natural-language request ('tell me if a Saturday morning haircut opens') onto the concrete fields services/days/from/to/time_zone and by noting business is a handle like @corner-barber, adding usable semantics 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 opening sentence states the resource (opening alerts a person wants from followed businesses and the openings waiting) and the description enumerates the three operating modes (show/set/clear). This is a specific verb+resource statement, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 per-action guidance: show is the default read, set with business configures, clear with business removes. It also states a clear condition of use -- 'Only change it when your person asks; the filter is theirs' -- which is an explicit when-to-mutate constraint.

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