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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the exact transparency boundaries (no member, trainer or payment data) and the windowing limits (7 days of booking counts, 14 days of slots, 12 services with prices). It says nothing about permissions or result caps beyond those limits, but this is solid added value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the selection trigger, then the payload description, then the exclusion. Dense but every clause carries either scope or content information; only the long enumerations push it toward terseness fatigue.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet its summary of the card's contents and the explicit data exclusions make the tool's boundaries unambiguous. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The single gymId parameter is fully documented in the schema (format pattern, source of the value), and the description adds no further syntax or sourcing guidance. With 100% schema coverage, the schema carries this dimension and the description correctly stays out of the way.

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 ('quick overview or dashboard of one gym') and enumerates what the overview card contains, which sets it apart from narrower siblings like get_gym_availability. However, it never names the overlapping gym siblings (get_gym, get_gym_availability, list_gyms) it should be chosen over, so the differentiation is by content rather than by explicit contrast.

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 a clear trigger ('use this when someone wants a quick overview or dashboard of one gym') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for a single member or booking'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool to call for those excluded cases, so routing for sibling gym tools is left to inference.

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