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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds behavior beyond that: broad queries deliberately drop the description field, while a name-filtered query returns it. That is a non-obvious result-shaping trait an agent would otherwise discover only by trial. Minor gaps remain about how far ahead 'coming up' extends.

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 resource and payload, then the filtering caveat. The field enumeration is slightly listy but each item tells the agent what it gets back, so it earns its place.

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, the description carries return-value duty and does so by naming the fields. Two optional parameters at full schema coverage and a safe read-only annotation profile mean little else is required; only the time window implied by 'coming up' is left undefined.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: name is not just a filter, it is the switch that unlocks full descriptions in the response. The studio parameter's enumerated values are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 resource (workshops, courses, teacher trainings at Yoga Dublin) plus the fields returned (dates, sessions, studio, teacher, price, book_url), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is distinguishable from siblings like yoga_dublin_classes or yoga_dublin_teachers by resource type, 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?

Gives one concrete usage rule: narrow with name to get full descriptions, since a broad list omits them. That is real operational guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over yoga_dublin_classes or yoga_dublin_schedule, leaving cross-tool routing to inference.

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