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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the data returned (dates and remaining seats) and that the output is suitable for answering specific questions. It does not contradict annotations and provides enough beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool provides, then gives concrete use cases. Both sentences earn their place, and there is no redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the kind of information returned, and how the output connects to a sibling tool. The existing annotations and output schema cover the remaining mechanical details, so nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond what the input schema already implies. The description adds relevant context by naming the `startsAt` value and its relationship to `request_table_seat`, which helps an agent understand how to use the output even though no parameters exist.

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 identifies the resource (scheduled dates for the private six-person product roundtable in Yerevan) and what it provides (dates and remaining guest seats). It also differentiates itself through the mention of the exact `startsAt` value needed by `request_table_seat`, making its role distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to use this tool: to answer when the next table is, whether a date has room, and to get the `startsAt` value for `request_table_seat`. This gives clear practical usage context and connects it to a sibling tool without ambiguity.

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