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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the return semantics: `available` vs `plannable`, and that `plannable` can exceed `available` when shortage is allowed. It does not mention rate limits or whether results are cached, but for a read-only lookup this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the core question the tool answers, followed by return semantics and the prerequisite lookup, and closing with the endpoint. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does via `available` and `plannable`. With readOnlyHint covering safety and the schema covering all parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the non-obvious 'local time written as UTC' convention. The description restates the exact-period/location framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 resource (inventory availability) with a precise verb and scope: how many units of one or more products can be booked for an exact period at a location. This distinguishes it from the sibling booqable_get_availability_calendar by emphasizing an exact period rather than a calendar view, and it names the underlying API endpoint.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite pointer ('Get location ids from booqable_list_locations'), which is the key routing information needed before calling. It never states when to prefer this over booqable_get_availability_calendar, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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