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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world), and the description still adds real behavior: results are in Pacific time, the window defaults to 7 days and is capped at 21, and the empty-result response has a defined ordering of alternatives. Missing only latency/caching or data-freshness notes.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, the enum, the date constraints, and the fallback chain. Front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the edge-case behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the description covers constraints and the empty case well. The one real gap is provenance of the required location_id, which an agent must resolve before it can call the tool at all.

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 0%, so the description carries the whole load. It does well on three parameters (tour_type enumerates in_person/virtual/test_drive with the default, date_from/date_to specify YYYY-MM-DD and the 7/21-day window), but location_id is required and there is no hint that it comes from list_locations/get_location, and conversation_id is never mentioned.

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+resource (open tour times from a live calendar at one location), and the fallback sentence distinguishes it from book_tour and request_tour by making clear this is the availability lookup, not the booking. An agent can tell it apart from every sibling without opening a 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?

Usage context is clear: check live availability for a single location, no contact details required (so it's a safe pre-booking probe), and if nothing is open the answer routes to the virtual tour, request_tour, or the nearest other location. No explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. once a slot is chosen, use book_tour), so it falls just short of a 5.

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