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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the three possible return states and the important fact that a successful check does not reserve the date (holding requires a quote request and payment). That non-binding nature is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core capability and its return values front-loaded and the constraint about date holding placed last. Every sentence carries information.

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 compensates by naming the possible return states (available, limited, unavailable), and it covers the key non-obvious constraint about reservation. Minor gaps remain around the robots parameter's behavior and whether the check is instantaneous or queued.

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 67% — date and end_date are documented in the schema, while the robots parameter carries only default/min/max bounds. The description adds a little ('a date (or date range)', 'humanoid robots'), but it does not clarify the robots count semantics beyond what the schema already constrains. 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (humanoid robot availability) with explicit scope for a single date or a range, and it even enumerates the three possible outcomes. It is clearly separable from get_catalog and request_quote.

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: the closing sentence about the date being held only after a quote request and payment hints that this is a pre-quote, non-binding check, but the description never explicitly says 'call this before request_quote' or states any exclusions. The workflow relationship to the sibling tool is left for the agent to infer.

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