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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it checks the real calendar including temporary holds, depends on the whole day due to one car/driver, returns alternatives when unavailable, and clarifies that availability is not a reservation. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 sentences deliver the essential scope, caveats, and return behavior with no wasted words. The most important information about the real calendar and read-only nature is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral and usage context: real calendar, capacity constraint, read-only semantics, and alternatives on failure. Since an output schema exists, return values are already specified; however, it does not clarify how optional addresses affect the drive-time calculation, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 coverage is only 40%, covering pickup_date and pickup_time, while passengers, pickup_address, and destination_address are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions driving to the pickup and back, which hints at address importance, but it does not explain any of the undocumented parameters or their role in the availability calculation.

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 clearly states the tool checks RIED.TAXI's real calendar for availability, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from booking/management siblings by emphasizing it is read-only and not a reservation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 description gives clear context: availability is whole-day dependent and a free result is not a reservation, so an agent knows not to treat this as a booking action. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_quote or hold_booking, but the read-only clarification provides useful boundary guidance.

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