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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating what is excluded (client names, contact details, ids, etc.) and by describing the output as aggregate counts and 'safe' previews, which clarifies the scope and privacy guarantees 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the main purpose first, then what it shows, then what it excludes. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and an output schema (which exists, per context), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what data it returns, what it omits, and where the input comes from. The presence of the output schema means the description does not need to detail return formats. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already describes salonId and provides a pattern, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the crucial constraint that the id must come from list_salons, which is not in the schema, thereby guiding correct input sourcing. This extra semantic enriches the parameter definition beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool renders a bounded, tenant-scoped operational overview for a specific salon, listing exactly what aggregates and previews it shows and what it excludes. This distinguishes it from sibling get/list tools like get_salon or list_appointments, which would provide detailed or raw data. The verb 'render' plus the resource and scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 notes that the salon id should come from list_salons, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this overview over using individual tools like get_salon or list_appointments, nor when not to use it (e.g., when detailed client data is needed). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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