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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior instead: the limit is a total across all dates, results carry Zarvo club IDs when matched, and number_of_players affects pricing only. It does not mention pagination or truncation behavior when the limit is hit, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the critical data-hygiene rule, then per-parameter caveats — every sentence carries operational information. It is dense for four sentences but no line is filler; a slightly tighter grouping of the parameter notes would improve scanability.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the description still flags the useful bit (Zarvo IDs when matched). For a 10-parameter, open-world lookup it covers the pitfalls an agent would otherwise hit, missing only guidance on choosing date vs. date_range and on limit truncation.

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 only 30% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully: it clarifies that limit applies across the whole date range rather than per date, that number_of_players is price-only and singles_court is the capacity filter, and that provider/club_name must match a prior search result exactly. It leaves the date vs. date_range interaction and max_days behavior unexplained.

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 (get available courts for a named provider club) and scopes it to one date or a bounded range. It explicitly separates itself from search_courts and from the club-selection step performed by search_clubs.

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 a positive trigger (user has selected a named club and wants availability), a hard exclusion ("Do not use for a broad nearby search; use search_courts instead"), and a data-provenance rule (copy provider and club_name from the search_clubs result, never infer provider). That is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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