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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable context beyond the annotation by describing the view granularity (day/week per resource) and the included item types (bookings, classes, blocked time, free windows). It does not cover auth failure behavior or output structure, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the access restriction is front-loaded, followed directly by the view modes and content types. Every phrase adds either a constraint or a capability.

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?

There is a notable gap: the description says the view is 'per staff member, room or rental pool,' but the input schema contains no parameter to select any of these resources, leaving a key part of the stated behavior uninvokable. There is also no output schema and no return-value description, so the agent cannot know what the response will contain beyond the vague content list.

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 description coverage is 67%: date and business_id have schema descriptions, but days does not, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'Day or week view' hint loosely implies days=1 vs days=7, but the description never explains how to select a staff member, room, or rental pool, despite claiming that scope in the purpose.

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 what the tool does: a read-only schedule view for business owners, showing bookings, classes, blocked time, and free windows per staff member, room, or rental pool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like owner_set_schedule (a write operation) and owner_list_bookings (booking listing only) by emphasizing the owner-only scope and the range of schedule content covered.

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 phrase 'Only for business owners signed in to Awning' gives role and authentication context, implying when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_availability (for non-owners) or owner_list_bookings (for booking-only lists), leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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