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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'blocked (not bookable)' semantics plus the concrete endpoint POST /v1/blocks:list. It adds nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a block record contains — acceptable, but lean given annotations carry the main load.

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 compact sentences with the meaning of the resource front-loaded and the endpoint as trailing detail. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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?

No output schema, and the description never indicates what is returned (block fields, nextPageToken for paging through results) even though page_token is a parameter. For a 6-parameter list tool this leaves a real gap, though the read-only nature and schema coverage limit the harm.

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 every parameter including company_id provenance, RFC 3339 date bounds, business_ids, and page_token is documented in the schema. The description adds no filter semantics (e.g., whether start_after/end_before are inclusive), so 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List blocked (not bookable) time slots') and it clarifies what a 'block' means via the staff-days-off example, which disambiguates an otherwise opaque term. It doesn't differentiate from near-neighbors like moego_get_booking_availability or moego_list_appointments, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives — an agent checking whether a slot is free could plausibly reach for moego_get_booking_availability, and the description never routes it. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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