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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that most interpreters take scheduled-call requests rather than fixed slots, warning the agent an empty result may be expected. It omits auth/rate-limit notes, but output schema carries return format.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the scheduling nuance following. Efficient, though the second sentence drifts slightly toward explaining an alternate flow rather than this tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and full schema coverage handles parameters. The definition is nearly complete, with the only gap being explicit routing guidance against the booking-adjacent siblings.

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 the schema fully documents all six parameters including date ranges, timezone, and language pair. The description adds no parameter detail beyond 'one interpreter', 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Bookable times for one interpreter' using Remoto's booking calendar rules. This clearly distinguishes it from price/listing siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by the resource ('for one interpreter') and the note that most interpreters use scheduled_request hints at the expected outcome, but it never states when to call this versus get_price_quote, get_start_link, or the scheduled-request flow explicitly.

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