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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context about field exclusions (free-text titles, notes, chair ids, etc.), pagination with hasMore, and ordering—all beyond the annotations, which is valuable for an agent.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it leads with the primary purpose and scope, then lists returns and exclusions, then filters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, return format is already defined. The description covers scope, ordering, pagination, filtering, and server-side exclusions. For a read-only, non-destructive tool with four optional parameters, this is complete.

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 all parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description reiterates that salonId and time filters are optional, but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema; this matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'non-appointment calendar blocks', the scope 'in the authenticated user's organization', and the ordering 'earliest start time first'. It also distinguishes from siblings by clarifying these blocks explain closures and open periods that appointments cannot reveal.

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 states when to use it: to understand closures and extra-open periods not visible via appointments, and it mentions optional filters (salonId, startTime/endTime). It implies appointments are handled by a different tool (list_appointments) without naming it, which is slightly less explicit than the 5-level benchmark.

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