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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: results are computed live minus already-requested or confirmed tables, and each table includes zone, seats, and minimum spend in AED. This is helpful, though it doesn't mention rate limits, caching, or edge cases like fully booked venues.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the core purpose (what is returned) and then list filters and fields. No waste, well-structured, and easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still summarizes the fields carried by each table. It covers purpose, data source, and filters, but lacks explicit usage guidance against siblings and any edge-case behavior. Still quite complete given rich schema and annotations.

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 schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including that party returns tables seating party..party+4 and that max_min_spend filters by AED. The description adds only a general filter summary, not syntax or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Check) and resource (availability/table availability) and clarifies that results come from the live floor plan minus already-requested or confirmed tables, which distinguishes it from more static table-listing siblings. An agent can tell this is for real-time availability, not general venue info.

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 implies usage for checking free tables before booking, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like show_tables, request_table, or booking_status. It gives useful context (live floor plan, excludes already-requested tables) but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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