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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so repeating 'Read-only' adds nothing. The genuinely new information is the permission caveat ('Resource permissions depend on your Shop Boss API key'), which warns the agent results may be scoped by key. It says nothing about pagination behaviour or whether 'available' is a filter, which is the main behavioral unknown.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, no padding. The only waste is restating 'Read-only', which annotations already cover.

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 list tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but with two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description and no mention of pagination limits or the shape of a bay entry, an agent cannot confidently page or interpret results without trial and error.

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 only 33% — shopId is documented in the schema, but page and pageSize carry only defaults and min/max with no semantics. The description does not compensate at all: it never mentions paging, defaults, or the shopId scoping parameter, so an agent must guess how to page through a large bay list.

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 and resource ('List service bays') and adds a purpose ('for appointment planning') that separates it from the other shopboss_list_* siblings. The word 'available' is slightly ambiguous — it's unclear whether it means bays defined in the shop or bays currently unoccupied — but the resource is still unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for appointment planning' implies the context in which to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use shopboss_list_appointments for existing bookings). The agent has to infer that this is the lookup step before booking.

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