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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's job is narrower; it still adds useful context — the 31-day range cap, the club's time zone used in the reply, and the authorization role required. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering, but the added behavioral detail is genuine.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned, then constraints, then auth. Parentheticals carry the time zone and range cap without breaking the flow; nothing is redundant.

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 does describe the return content (operating hours, booked slots, reply time zone), which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It remains silent on result volume or pagination behavior for a 31-day range, a minor gap given only 4 optional params.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already documents format and the date-vs-range exclusivity. The description only restates the date/range choice and the 31-day bound, adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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+resource ('Court availability') and enumerates the payload: each court's operating hours plus already-booked time slots for a date or range. This is meaningfully distinct from list_reservations, though the description never names the sibling to sharpen that boundary.

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 a real constraint ('at most 31 days') and the required role ('Needs the Reservation role (Read)'), which helps an agent decide feasibility. However it never says when to prefer this over courtreserve_list_reservations or courtreserve_court_utilization, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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