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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: marked-off days are not hard blocks, the mover confirms and calls first, and the agent should prefer open days when possible. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent use the data appropriately.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the critical soft-semantics behavioral guidance, and the final scope tag is minimal. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a read-only tool with two optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the soft nature of the data and the quote scope, which is the key usage context. It does not explicitly describe the response format, but 'which days' sufficiently implies a list of dates, and no output schema exists to add further structure.

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 parameters are already documented in detail, including defaults, formats, and clamping behavior. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning the days the mover has marked off, and adds helpful context that this is before a job exists. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' but the meaning is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_date_prices or get_job by its focus on mover unavailability.

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 provides clear guidance on how to interpret results: marked days are soft, can still be requested, and should be steered away from when the customer has a choice. It also scopes the tool to 'quote' context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but this is not needed given the clarity of the usage context.

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