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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: pagination ignores all other fields on subsequent calls, the search window is capped at 31 days, results include an estimated price, and flexibleTime products are covered. It stops short of describing response shape or failure modes, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, then paging, then read-only, then endpoint mapping — every sentence carries information for an agent. The trailing Bookeo endpoint line is somewhat procedural but useful for traceability, and the density never becomes padding.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, it covers scope, window limits, paging continuation and the price signal. The main remaining gap is what a result row contains (slot structure, availability count), which the agent must discover at runtime, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly 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 100%, so every parameter including mode, options, resources and peopleNumbers is already documented in the schema. The description echoes the key inputs (participant counts per category, options, resources) and adds paging semantics that largely duplicate the pageNavigationToken schema text; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Find slots that can take a given party') with the matching criteria enumerated and the return payoff ('with an estimated price'). It implicitly separates itself from bookeo_get_availability_slots via the party-matching framing and 'works for all product types, including flexibleTime', but never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 real operating context: the 31-day window cap and the paging rule ('to page through results pass only pageNavigationToken (+ pageNumber)'), which directly tells an agent how to continue a search. It does not state when to prefer this over bookeo_get_availability_slots or bookeo_create_hold, so the alternative selection is left implicit.

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