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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: results are limited to the next 2 weeks and include both booked and waitlisted entries, which an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and the time window, with the optional scoping clause trailing. There is no filler and every clause carries information.

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 only two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, the description supplies enough to call correctly and sketches the return (booked + waitlisted, 2-week horizon). Minor gap: it does not describe the per-entry fields or ordering, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, with both the gym filter ('id from my_gyms, default all your gyms') and locale enum fully documented in the schema itself. The description's '(or one with gym)' restates the schema's default rather than adding format or usage detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (the signed-in member's booked and waitlisted classes) and bounds it precisely with a time window (next 2 weeks), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_schedule, my_schedule, and search_classes that deal with available rather than personal bookings.

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 phrase 'signed-in member's upcoming booked and waitlisted classes' establishes clearly when this tool applies (personal booking status), and the parenthetical shows the two scoping modes. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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