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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context the annotations don't carry, notably that booking gaps are explained via booking.reason with booking.book_at as the redirect and that udansa provides no external booking links. It does not say what happens with an unknown id, but the added semantics are substantive.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs the field list. Every clause earns its place as a payload inventory, though the parenthetical caveats make it slightly run-on.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: description, styles, level, provider, instructor, venue address, schedule details, pricing, free places, age limits, waitlist, trial lesson, and booking status. Only error/not-found behavior and pagination are unaddressed, which is minor for a single-record lookup.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3; both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description names 'Link: url' and 'styles'/'style names', which loosely connects to the language parameter's effect, but it never explains the language parameter's impact on the link and style rendering itself.

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 and resource ('Full public details of one dance course on udansa') and immediately enumerates the returned payload, making it unmistakably distinct from the sibling search tools that return course ids. An agent can tell this is the detail-expansion counterpart to search_dance_courses.

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: 'one dance course' plus the schema note that the id comes from search_dance_courses tells the agent the search-then-details flow, but the description never states when to use this versus get_event_details or read_page_text, nor any exclusions.

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