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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: the data is fictional, it's a sandbox, and the results are only for testing. This is beyond what annotations provide, and it does not contradict them.

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 concise, two sentences, with the sandbox and purpose front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's scope and limitations.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to call this tool, given the annotations and schema cover safety and parameters. It does not describe the return format, but since no output schema is provided, the description could have been more explicit about the structure of the returned list. However, for a listing tool, the purpose is clear and the agent can infer the likely shape (list of businesses with slots).

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, including the category slug format and the date format. The description adds no further parameter-specific information, merely referencing the date in the context of the operation. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool's function: it lists fictional sample businesses with free appointment slots for a given date, explicitly for testing the appointment flow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business or find_nearby, and the SANDBOX prefix signals its test nature.

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 states the intended use case: 'Zum Testen des Terminflows' (for testing the appointment flow). It also clarifies that real businesses are not bookable, implying this is for sandbox testing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so while the context is clear, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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