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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals useful behaviors: it is tenant-scoped, explicitly excludes sensitive/internal fields like organization ids and payment configuration, and reports cross-organization salons as not found. This is meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense sentences carry only relevant information: the primary purpose, the returned data shape and exclusions, and the cross-tenant behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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 an output schema present and only one well-documented parameter, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It explains scope, exclusions, and an important not-found edge case without redundantly restating the schema.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that salonId comes from list_salons, which is helpful, but it adds no format or syntactic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one tenant-scoped HairDora salon by an id returned from list_salons.' It clearly differentiates the tool from list_salons by specifying that a single salon is fetched using a previously returned id, and the field list makes the purpose concrete.

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 gives clear context by stating that the salon id must come from list_salons and that salons from other organizations are treated as not found. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the provenance requirement effectively guides the agent on the correct workflow.

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