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

Beyond the read-only, open-world annotations, the description discloses important behavior: default date range, anonymous match metadata, provider join page, and that it never reveals identities or joins on the user's behalf. This materially reduces ambiguity about what the tool returns and does not do.

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 description is four tight sentences, front-loads the main use case, and includes only operationally relevant details. Every sentence contributes to selection or invocation 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with a nested object and an output schema, the description covers the core usage, defaults, return privacy, and exclusion cases well. It is not fully complete because provider and radius_km are not addressed and the date_range object is only partially implied.

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 must carry the burden. It adds useful meaning for date, time, level, limit, and the 14-day default, but it does not explain provider, radius_km, or the exact date_range object semantics, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 and resource: searching existing public padel games with an open spot. It also explicitly distinguishes this from empty-court bookings, which helps separate it from sibling tools like search_courts and get_availability.

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 when-to-use guidance and an explicit when-not-to-use condition: 'Do not use for empty-court bookings.' It also tells the agent to omit optional filters unless requested and explains the default 14-day behavior.

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