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 meaningful resource semantics (started/out vs stopped/returned counts, product-order mapping), but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting/sideloading capabilities, or any auth/rate-limit context for this read endpoint.

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 tightly written sentences plus the underlying endpoint. The core definition is front-loaded, the filter sentence follows logically, and there is no filler text.

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 read-only list tool with a fully described 10-parameter schema and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the resource and filtering dimensions. It omits advanced options like include (sideloading) and sort, but those are documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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% and all 10 parameters are individually documented there. The description's mention of filtering by 'order, product, or reservation window' mirrors order_id, product_id, and the starts_at/stops_at parameters but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (plannings) and then defines what a planning actually represents: which product is booked on which order, quantity, timing, and started/stopped counts. This is far more specific than restating the name, and no sibling tool covers the same resource.

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?

The description says 'Filter by order, product, or reservation window,' which implies the filtering scenarios the tool supports, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g. list_orders or get_availability_calendar) or any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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