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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool runs without asking first, messages no one, and that another call restores the old limit (reversibility), plus an auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). These are genuinely useful behavioral facts not derivable from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=true.

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 core purpose and scoping rules are front-loaded, and each following sentence adds a distinct fact (per-slot counting, no-confirmation behavior, reversibility, auth). It is slightly dense but no sentence is filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and partial annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: reversibility, no outbound messages, and the auth prerequisite. It does not describe a response, but with no output schema that is not required.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic clarification: 'places counts per slot, not per day' resolves ambiguity the schema's terse 'Maximum places per slot' leaves open, and it confirms the weekday/time filters are optional refinements rather than separate parameters.

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 precise verb and resource: it limits/sets the maximum places sold per slot for an activity over a date range, optionally scoped by weekday and start time. This is clear enough to distinguish from get/list siblings, though it never explicitly names close_dates or open_dates as the contrasting capacity operations.

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 conveys the scoping options (date range, optional weekdays, optional start times) and warns that the call runs without a confirmation step, so usage is implied. However, it never states when to prefer this over civitatis_close_dates or civitatis_open_dates, so the agent must infer the choice.

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