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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the description is free to add value beyond it. It does: it discloses the returned fields, the Eastern timezone convention (a real gotcha for scheduling), and that booking ids are included, which tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating pre-booking read. It omits anything about result volume or ordering beyond 'upcoming'.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, the scope, the field list, the timezone, and the downstream purpose with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does by naming times/timezone, availability, price, and ids. With three optional, fully schema-documented parameters and clear safety annotations, only the lack of explicit routing against get_session_times keeps this from being complete.

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%, so all three parameters (days, from_date, class_name) are already documented with defaults and an example in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns upcoming live NOGA classes') and enumerates the payload (times in Eastern, spots left, price, booking ids). It is clear about what it does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling get_session_times, leaving the class-vs-session boundary for the agent to infer.

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: 'the ids needed to book' hints that this precedes book_class, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion relative to get_session_times, get_teacher_trainings, or list_services. The agent can guess the discovery-then-book flow but must infer it.

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