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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: unset fields are omitted and surfaced under `notProvided` rather than guessed, oversized parties route to `groupEnquiry`, and `venueClock` — not the caller's local date — is the resolve target for later date arguments. The explicit warning that times are text with no timezone identifier because conversion causes hour-level booking errors is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded: the lead sentence defines the tool and immediately gives the 'call this first' rule. Three short paragraphs, each doing distinct work. Slightly long relative to a two-parameter read tool, but no sentence is filler — the timezone caution in particular earns its space.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the salient result fields an agent must reason over (`notProvided`, `groupEnquiry`, `venueClock`) and explains how to interpret them. Combined with the ordering and downstream-dependency guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly first in the workflow.

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 coverage is 100%, so the `slug` format rules and the `venue` alias are already documented there, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the acquisition path ('find_venues turns a name or suburb into one') and the ordering constraint, giving an agent more than the schema alone without duplicating it.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read a venue's public booking profile') and enumerates the scope of what that profile covers: identity, location, bookable services, and local time. It also implicitly separates itself from find_venues by describing that tool as the name→slug resolver, so an agent can pick between them without opening a 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?

'Call this first once you have a slug' gives an explicit ordering rule, names the prerequisite tool (find_venues), and states why the output is needed downstream ('appointment searches need a service id from here'). When-not and alternative conditions are effectively covered by the slug prerequisite gate.

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