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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, clearly signaling this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by clarifying it retrieves 'available lesson times' and 'offering details', and it discloses the operational caveat that the slug and offeringId are internal identifiers not to be shown. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only four sentences with no waste. Critical information is front-loaded: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, with usage constraints and security rules following immediately. Every sentence earns its place by addressing a distinct aspect (purpose, use case, prerequisites, security constraint).

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 that the input schema has 100% coverage, an output schema exists, and annotations fully cover the tool's safety profile, the description is complete. The output schema presumably defines the return shape for availability and offering details, so the description does not need to expand on that. The description effectively sets context on when to use the tool and how to handle internal identifiers, leaving no gaps.

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%, with both `slug` and `offeringId` having detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3. The description does inform usage context for the parameters (e.g., using slug from prior search results), but that is more about usage guidelines than parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'offering details and available lesson times for one specific coach'. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('offering details and available lesson times'), and the context of 'one specific coach' effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like `search_golf_coaches` which searches for coaches rather than their availability.

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 when to use this tool ('when the user asks for schedule, openings, or available times for a known coach') and provides clear guidance on what to do if the coach is not yet selected, directing the agent to call `search_golf_coaches` or reuse results from `search_golf_programs`. It also notes that internal identifiers (slug and offeringId) 'must never be shown or mentioned to the user', which is a crucial usage constraint.

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