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

Discloses key behaviors: services are listed for every venue (even those without booking systems), the meaning of bookableViaMcp, and that only venue services (with place_slug) can be used with create_booking. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of three sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines, then return details. The third sentence is lengthy but contains necessary information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields), but remains clear and efficient.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return fields (name, description, price, duration, bookableViaMcp) and how to interpret bookableViaMcp. It addresses edge cases (venues without booking, directory's own services) and links to related tools (create_booking, search_places). No gaps remain.

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 already provides detailed description of place_slug (100% coverage). The description adds extra context by contrasting the two usage modes (with/without place_slug) and linking to create_booking, going beyond the schema. However, since schema already covers the parameter well, the added value is moderate but meaningful.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists a venue's services with price and duration. It distinguishes between listing venue services (with place_slug) and the directory's own services (without), and notes that only venue services work with create_booking. This differentiates it from sibling tools effectively.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: pass place_slug from search_places for venue services, which is 'what you want in almost every case.' It also warns against omitting place_slug (directory's own services, usually absent) and explains the bookableViaMcp field for handling venues without online booking. Provides clear guidance on when to redirect users instead.

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