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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's main added value is the return-shape disclosure: blocks and extra openings with salon, type, scope, effect, all-day flag and times, ordered earliest first, excluding titles/notes. It also states the default scope (all salons unless one is given). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the use case and ending with the exclusion. The second sentence is dense but every clause (return fields, ordering, exclusion of titles/notes) carries information; no filler.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema, a rich annotation set, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers triggers, scope, ordering and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema, and the description largely repeats the salon-scoping idea already present in salonId. It does add ordering semantics ('earliest first') that the schema does not express, but adds no new syntax or format detail for the parameters themselves.

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 gives a specific verb (list) and resource (closures, days off, blocked time) and explicitly distinguishes the output from client appointments. An agent can identify this tool's domain from the description alone.

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?

It opens with explicit trigger conditions ('when someone asks when their salon is closed or has extra opening hours, or when a stylist or chair is blocked...') and closes with a clear exclusion ('Not for client appointments'), routing the agent away from the appointment siblings.

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