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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the 7-day default window, that the same rules as the online order form apply, working-day and public-holiday handling, booking cut-off, capacity constraints, and area-limited windows. It also makes clear that actual booking is external via order_url, which is important context for an agent.

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 two tight sentences with the core purpose and default scope front-loaded, followed by important constraints and the external booking note. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary wording.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the slot rules, area limitations, and that booking happens elsewhere. It could be stronger by explicitly pointing to check_courier_area for area verification or by describing the returned slot structure, but the essentials are covered.

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 schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the date default and lang enum, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the date behavior by saying next 7 days or one given date, but adds no further meaning for lang or other parameter semantics.

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 that the tool returns free laundry courier pickup times for the next 7 days or a specific date. It adds scope details like working days, public holidays, cut-off, capacity, and area-limited windows, making the resource understandable, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as check_courier_area.

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 implies the tool is for checking available courier pickup slots and clarifies that booking happens on the order page, not through this tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus check_courier_area or other sibling tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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