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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the required authorization role and the backing endpoint. It does not go further into pagination or return behavior for the truncated case.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the prerequisite and endpoint. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields, authorization, and integration context. Only the truncation/return behavior is left implicit, which 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?

There is a single optional parameter and the schema documents it fully (including default 100, max 500, and the truncation notice). The description adds nothing about the limit, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('The club's courts') and enumerates the returned fields (id, label, court type, order). It also signals that this is reference data feeding the utilization and blocks tools, which hints at its distinct role among the list_* siblings, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite ('Needs the Reservation role (Read)') and states the downstream use case ('Use the ids in court utilization and court blocks'), which tells the agent when this tool matters. It stops short of explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance.

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