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

Annotations already guarantee read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: lead times that can span days, items unavailable on certain days, per-slot limits and capacity, deposit or full-payment terms, and that unavailable slots are returned with a reason. This is exactly the extra context a read-only listing tool should disclose.

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?

The purpose and preconditions are front-loaded, and the length is justified given there is no output schema to carry the return shape. However, the usage/return detail is delivered as one sprawling semicolon-chained sentence that takes effort to parse.

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 3-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (which venues), input intent, and the full result shape (schedule summary, slotInstanceId, readyAtLocal, orderByLocal, places left, payment terms, unavailable-with-reason), including a plain-words schedule field for guest-facing description. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning: it explains why items (menuItemId + quantity) matter — each slot is validated against them — and that method (pickup/delivery) governs which slots are marked unavailable. restaurantId is left implicit, but its role is obvious from context.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('list pre-order time slots') and immediately scopes it to a distinguishable venue class (scheduled pre-orders: bakeries, caterers, identified via list_menu_items soldAheadOnly). An agent can tell this apart from the many availability/pre-order siblings without opening the schema.

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 clear triggering context (only venues that take scheduled pre-orders) and tells the agent how to drive the call — pass the items so slots are validated against lead time, day availability and capacity, or leave empty for a raw schedule view. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling to use instead (e.g. book_reservation or check_event_availability) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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