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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already establish the safety profile, and the description goes beyond them usefully: it discloses a two-week window on teacher/studio data and, more importantly, that a broad list omits class descriptions. That omission behaviour is a non-obvious quirk an agent would otherwise trip over. Missing only volume/pagination expectations.

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, front-loaded with the returned fields before the narrowing advice, with no filler. The middle enumeration is dense but each item (discipline, studios, teachers, cheapest price) is load-bearing information about the response shape.

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?

With no output schema, a single optional parameter, and read-only annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does so: it sketches the returned fields, the time window, and the description-omission rule. Only the absence of any note on result volume or how descriptions are truncated keeps it from full marks.

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% and the schema already explains that name matches part of a class name or discipline, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by tying the parameter to an outcome the schema does not mention: supplying name is what unlocks full descriptions.

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 opens with a concrete resource definition and enumerates the payload: discipline, studios and teachers running it in the next two weeks, and the cheapest single class. That is specific and lets an agent distinguish it from a bare schedule or price lookup, though it never names a sibling tool outright despite obvious overlap with yoga_dublin_prices and yoga_dublin_studios.

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?

"Use this for what a class is like or who it suits" gives an explicit selection criterion, and the closing clause tells the agent exactly how to invoke it (narrow with name for full descriptions). It stops short of stating when to prefer yoga_dublin_prices or yoga_dublin_studios instead, so the boundary with siblings is implied rather than stated.

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