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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" is largely redundant; however, disclosing that the endpoint is a POST despite being read-only is genuinely useful, as is describing what comes back (free resource ids per start, plus existing group bookings with room). No mention of result caps or pagination behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the workflow step and the read-only/POST note. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the shape of the result and the booking workflow for a 9-parameter search tool. Minor gaps: nothing on how many intervals are returned or whether ranges are searched independently versus merged.

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%, so every parameter including ranges, spaces, duration, and timezone is already documented. The description only loosely links the spaces concept via "existing group bookings with room" and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a precise verb and resource — find the start times a service can be booked, returning free resource ids and room-holding group bookings. An agent can tell it apart from most siblings, though the distinction from appointedd_find_available_dates (dates vs. concrete start times) is left implicit.

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?

"Step 1 of making a booking: pick a start, then appointedd_create_reservation" gives explicit workflow context and names the follow-up tool. It stops short of saying when to prefer appointedd_find_available_dates or when not to use this search.

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