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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth posture ('no host account access') and what the page content contains (guest fields and meeting options). Return shape is covered by the output schema, so this is adequate.

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?

Three short declarative sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence (what it reads, what it returns, what auth it needs) earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, and content scope. It is nearly complete; only the explicit sibling-disambiguation is missing.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter, but the description clarifies that it accepts 'a public Yoya booking link or slug' — meaning a full URL may also be accepted, which is non-obvious from the schema. With only one parameter and an output schema present, this is a modest but real contribution.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public Yoya booking link or slug'), and the word 'public' helps separate it from siblings like get_booking and preview_booking. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'No host account access' signals the caller does not need to be authenticated as a host, which is implicit guidance on when this applies. However, it never contrasts the use case against get_booking, preview_booking, or book_meeting, leaving the agent to infer which sibling to pick.

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