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

With annotations only covering readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds genuine behavioral context: auth requirements for viewing vs booking, and everything the response contains (pro id, workplace, services with length and price, booking/payment/cancellation policy). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and lookup keys, and every sentence carries information (usage keys, auth notes, return shape). It is a dense single paragraph, but nothing reads as 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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return fields itself, and it covers auth prerequisites and the empty-query mode. For a one-parameter read tool with minimal annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden — and does: it names the accepted forms (name, business name, booking handle), gives a concrete format example (marcus-cuts), and explains the empty-string list behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (barbers, stylists, shops that take real bookings on ShearQuery), and enumerates the lookup keys (name, business name, booking handle) plus the empty-query list mode. This clearly separates it from booking-oriented siblings like book_with_pro and cancel_appointment.

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?

Gives concrete context: no account needed to search, client must sign in to actually book, and an explicit fallback ('leave the search empty to list them'). It never names a specific alternative tool, so it falls short of the explicit when-not/alternative framing of a 5.

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