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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool rejects shoot_type_id if the photographer doesn't offer it, and emphasizes 'real, currently bookable' packages, indicating filtering of invalid/expired options. However, it omits details like error responses, return format, pagination, or authentication requirements, which are important for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a practical cross-tool reference. It is efficient with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the return includes prices and package ids (implied by 'Use the returned package id'), and clarifies validation behavior. However, it does not describe the exact output structure (e.g., array of objects) or potential error conditions, which could leave an agent uncertain about parsing the response.

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 50% (only photographer_uid has a description). The description adds meaning for shoot_type_id by stating it rejects invalid values, and clarifies the unit (Toman) and purpose of the parameters. Yet it does not fully compensate for the missing shoot_type_id description, nor does it explain the expected format of the uid beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action: listing packages, with specific scope (photographer and shoot type), and clarifies it returns real, currently bookable packages with prices in Toman. It also differentiates itself from siblings by mentioning the returned package id is used with create_reservation, which helps an agent understand the tool's role in the workflow.

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 gives a cross-tool hint ('Use the returned package id with create_reservation') and implies the tool is for obtaining package prices, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_photographers or search_shoot_types. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative routing, though the parameter description for photographer_uid points to search_photographers, providing indirect guidance.

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