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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the two-team model that gives 'limited' its meaning, the three possible outcomes, and the crucial caveat that the answer is indicative and the date is only reserved after proposal acceptance. It omits nothing an agent needs operationally for a read-only check.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then scope, then return states, then usage. The long parenthetical is dense but informative rather than redundant. No filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return vocabulary (available / limited / fully_booked) and the non-binding nature of the result, which is what the agent needs to interpret output. It stops short of saying whether the optional service parameter narrows the availability computation, a minor open question.

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%, with the date format pattern and a fully documented service enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only loosely echoes the service categories ('weddings, baptisms, corporate events') without adding format or selection guidance beyond the schema, so 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 ('Checks whether the studio can still take an event on a given date') and immediately clarifies the scope of work covered (weddings, baptisms, corporate, on-location) plus the two-team constraint. It separates itself from request_quote by declaring it must run beforehand, so an agent can route correctly.

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 precondition and ordering rule: 'Use before request_quote when the user has a date.' This is clear when-to-use guidance tied to an alternative tool. It does not, however, address when this is superfluous or how it relates to get_studio_slots, so exclusions are absent.

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