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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description needn't restate that. What it does add is substantive: counts mean machines physically on site rather than machines currently free, and no sibling can supply live occupancy. That prevents a realistic misreading of the returned numbers.

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 content is front-loaded into one dense sentence followed by two short clarifiers. Every clause carries information, though the opening sentence is long enough that the counts caveat gets buried mid-string rather than led with.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it correctly spends its words on interpretation pitfalls (site counts vs. availability) and source pages. Only the relationship to get_pricing is left unaddressed, which an agent could need to disambiguate.

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% and the single `language` enum is fully documented in the schema, including the /es/ path note. The description adds nothing about the language parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource and enumerates exactly what comes back: size, count on site, price, per-card notes, plus the services page's machine description and cycle times, all branded Speed Queen. It is specific enough that an agent knows what data it gets. It stops short of 5 because it never names itself as distinct from the sibling get_pricing, which plausibly also returns prices.

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 parenthetical '(no tool knows that)' tells the agent not to use this tool to check live availability, which is genuine negative guidance. However, it does not say when to prefer this over get_pricing or get_amenities, and the usage context is left implied by the data it returns.

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