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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds the concrete response fields (id, public name, location, active flag, online-booking flag, working hours) despite there being no output schema, plus the underlying endpoint. It omits any pagination or rate-limit behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and why it matters, closed by the endpoint. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lists returned fields but never mentions that results can be filtered by service, location, active state or name, nor how sorting works. An agent reading only the description would not know the tool's filtering power, leaving meaningful capability undisclosed.

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 100%, including pagination guidance on `page` and filter semantics on `active`, `service_ids` and `location_ids`, so the schema does all the work. The description adds nothing about filtering or sorting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List service providers') with a clarifying gloss ('the staff who take bookings') and an enumeration of the fields returned, which makes it distinct from agendapro_get_provider. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the list-vs-get distinction is self-evident.

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?

'Provider ids are needed to book' implies the prerequisite workflow (enumerate providers, then create a booking), which is genuinely useful orientation. However, no condition is given for choosing this over agendapro_get_provider or agendapro_list_available_slots, and no exclusions or alternative routing is stated.

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