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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it returns a per-evening status and explicitly distinguishes FERMÉ (closed) from COMPLET (full) as two different outcomes, plus a 5-person-per-table capacity limit that constrains what can be requested.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. Most content earns its place, though the aside about how CLOSED and FULL 'ne se disent pas de la même façon à un client' is slightly conversational for a tool definition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return semantics — and it does: per-evening bookable/closed/full status. Annotations cover safety, params are fully described in the schema, and capacity is noted. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the absence of sibling routing as a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by surfacing the capacity constraint ('jusqu'à 5 personnes par table'), which directly informs the optional party_size parameter and its default — meaningful semantics the schema does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: per-evening table availability at a named venue (Rooftop des Voiles, Toulon) over a date range. It implicitly distinguishes itself as the read/availability check versus the write siblings (create_rooftop_reservation, create_booking_session), but never names an alternative such as get_alternative_dates to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied (check availability before booking); there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The note about communicating CLOSED vs FULL differently to a client hints at the intent but does not route the agent between sibling tools.

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