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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the underlying endpoints (GET /v3/events/{id}/dates vs. GET /v3/dates), but says nothing about pagination limits, result ordering, or what a date record contains.

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 tight sentences with the scoping rule front-loaded and no filler. The trailing API-endpoint sentence is marginally useful context rather than wasted space, though it is the least load-bearing part.

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 9-parameter, all-optional read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the decisions that matter (event scope, availability filter) and the schema documents the rest at full coverage. Only paging and delta-sync behavior are unaddressed in prose.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces event_id and available semantics but adds nothing for limit/offset/fields/delta_since/accept_vendors beyond what the schema already states, and introduces no format or interaction details.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List bookable dates") plus its two scoping modes (per-event vs. all events), which separates it from bookingkit_list_events. The lead phrase "with free capacity" slightly overstates the default behavior, since filtering by free places actually requires available=true — a small ambiguity but not enough to obscure the purpose.

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 clear conditional guidance: supply event_id for a single event, omit it for all events, and set available=true to restrict to dates with free places. It does not name an alternative sibling or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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