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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context: timezone (Europe/London) and the appointment-only nature of sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the exact return format, which remains implied for a simple getter.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and timezone, and the second adds practical guidance and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the empty input schema and absence of output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, timezone, and the appointment caveat, plus a clear next step. It is complete enough for an AI to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema defines zero parameters, which warrants a baseline score of 4. The description mentions weekday and timezone as conceptual aspects of the output but adds no parameter-specific detail, since none exist.

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 ('get') and resource ('business hours') along with the studio name 'Opus Lumière' and timezone. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_availability and get_booking_link by focusing on the weekly schedule rather than bookings or services.

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 description explicitly states that sessions are by appointment and advises to 'confirm a real slot with check_availability', naming the alternative tool. This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus check_availability, though it doesn't formally address other siblings.

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