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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it specifies the exact window, states that only daily slot counts and first/last bookable times are returned, and explicitly lists what the tool never reveals. This is strong transparency.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the window and explicit exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining context: the fixed window, the output scope, and privacy exclusions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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% for the single parameter gymId, which is already described as an 'Owned GymFlexa gym id'. The description reinforces that it is a tenant-owned gym but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb ('Summarize bookable capacity') and resource ('one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym') with a precise time window, making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it never identifies members, appointments, trainers, or unavailability reasons, which separates it from schedule or payment tools.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: for capacity summaries over the fixed window for a single tenant-owned gym. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and output constraints imply the appropriate context well.

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