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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is not required to restate them. It adds genuine behavioral context instead: the response includes the actual list of blocked dates rather than a count, which tells the agent it can answer concrete availability questions. It does not discuss response shape or size limits, keeping it just short of 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?

The high-value capability (actual blocked dates) and the routing rule are front-loaded, and every clause in the field enumeration is substantive rather than filler. The list is long, but the length is justified by the breadth of the profile; only minor tightening is possible.

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, yet the description compensates by enumerating what comes back: bio, pricing and negotiability, cancellation and travel terms, service areas, genres, occasions, extras, venue requirements, ratings, and concrete blocked dates. Combined with the when-to-use rule, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what it can answer.

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 single parameter is already documented with the same provenance hint in the schema ('The DJ id or slug from search_djs'). The description repeats that instruction but adds no syntax, format, or fallback guidance beyond it, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('complete profile for one DJ') and immediately enumerates the scope of that profile, including the distinctive 'THE ACTUAL BLOCKED DATES, not just a count' capability. It explicitly names the sibling search_djs as the source of the identifier, so an agent can distinguish it from search tools without reading either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: 'Call this for candidates worth a closer look; the search summary is enough to shortlist from.' That tells the agent both when to use it and when not to, with the cheaper alternative named. It also states the precondition that the id or slug comes from search_djs.

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