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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: data scope ('current public WellFred classes') and a critical caveat ('Results do not establish seat availability'). No auth or rate-limit details, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Four tightly written sentences with zero waste. The when-to-use condition is front-loaded, followed by scope, alternative, and caveat in logical order.

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?

Given 4 parameters (including a nested object) and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, origin guidance, and a key result caveat. It omits default limit behavior and pagination, but those are likely in the schema or output schema.

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%, with the 'limit' parameter undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds some guidance for origin ('Use a resolved locality center if the customer supplied an area'), but it does not compensate for the missing limit or provide syntax details beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (classes), scoped to 'current public WellFred classes' in Costa Rica, and explicitly distinguishes from 'services' for general needs. An agent can tell this apart from sibling service/event tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('customer specifically wants classes in Costa Rica') and names an alternative ('use services for general provider/service needs'). It also guides origin usage with 'Use a resolved locality center if the customer supplied an area.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use for other siblings like events.

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