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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: paid classes are surfaced only for discovery and not for booking or deeper interaction.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the paid-classes constraint adds essential information without bloating the description.

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 simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides the necessary purpose, scope, and a key usage limitation. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity makes that 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps branch_slug to 'club' and week_start to 'week', which provides useful context, but it does not clarify formats such as how week_start should be represented (e.g., date format, timezone). The field names are fairly self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not thorough.

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 ('Show') and a concrete resource ('public schedule for a club and week'), immediately distinguishing this from personal schedule tools like list_my_classes. The phrase 'Paid classes are for discovery only' further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 clearly indicates this is for public schedule discovery and adds an important constraint that paid classes are discovery-only, giving the agent context about how the tool should be used. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'public' framing strongly implies the boundary against personal-schedule tools.

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