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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context the annotations cannot: the empty-list semantics, the ordering of timeslots, and the 'Cotlet API key with access to this app' auth prerequisite.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return shape, and each sentence contributes (result interpretation, next-step routing, auth). The first two sentences overlap somewhat on describing the return, which keeps it from a 5.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining returns (ticket types with prices, ordered free timeslots, empty-list case) and the auth requirement. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the lack of product-ID discovery guidance is a minor gap.

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% (product_id documented as originating from search_experiences, date as visit date), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates 'a product on a date' without adding format or constraint detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 availability) and resource (ticket types, timeslots, prices for a product on a date), and the return shape. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tiqets_get_experience (metadata) and tiqets_start_checkout (purchase step).

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 concrete context: 'An empty list means nothing is available that day' tells the agent how to interpret results, and 'Pass a ticket type ID to start_checkout' routes to the next tool. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a pointer to search_experiences for finding product IDs, so it stops short of a 5.

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