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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the prerequisite inputs and the grouped-by-day return structure, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits rate limits, pagination/cap behavior, and the drive-time effect of lat/lng.

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 dense sentences that front-load the resource and return shape, then the prerequisites. The trailing 'GET /v1/scheduling/timeslots' is mildly redundant with the tool name but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 ten parameters, two required, and no output schema, the description does the important work: it identifies the required inputs, their source, and the response nesting. Optional filters (providers, skills, templates, min_providers_needed) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters, including the lat/lng pairing and defaults. The description only restates that territory and duration are needed, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the required list. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('available booking time slots for a service territory') and even the response shape ('days[].timeslots[] with start, end and id'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. No sibling tool returns timeslots, so differentiation is not a meaningful gap, but the statement is descriptive rather than sharply verb-led.

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 concrete prerequisites and routes the agent to the right siblings for the territory id ('zenbooker_list_territories or zenbooker_check_service_area'), plus the required duration. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or how it relates to any competing availability path.

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