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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context beyond them: the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') and that inactive providers are also returned, which is useful behavioral detail.

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 scoping facts are front-loaded, but the opening is redundant: 'Providers and teams, active or not' is immediately restated as 'Lists providers and teams, active or not.' That repeated sentence does not earn 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?

For a read-only, single-optional-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it covers auth, result scope (active and inactive), and downstream id usage. Only a note on return shape or pagination would round it out.

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% for the single date parameter, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of the date ('which shows who has room'), adding interpretation of what the parameter reveals, not just restating its format.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists providers and teams, active or not') and adds the scope qualifier that they may be inactive. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining the id links to 'list_bookings, create_booking and assign_provider'.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('Pass a date to see each provider's bookings that day, which shows who has room') and routes the resulting id into three named sibling tools. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the caller understands the purpose and downstream flow.

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