Check Availability

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

Despite annotations covering readOnly/non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the result is guidance, not a commitment; final coverage requires coordinator confirmation; and results must not be shown as reservations. This exceeds what annotations alone convey, even if it doesn't detail the output structure (which the output schema covers).

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 concise yet information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by caveats, a 'DO NOT' that points to a sibling tool, and a strategic hint. Each sentence serves a clear function in guiding correct invocation.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and behavior annotations, the description adds the right amount of extra context—tier-based, not a reservation, coordinator confirmation, and a useful market hint. The tool is well-specified for each aspect an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds useful examples demonstrating optional role and count but does not add deeper semantics beyond the schema. The schema handles the parameter documentation well.

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, distinct purpose: return tier-based lead-time guidance for an event date and configured market. It includes concrete example queries and explicitly differentiates itself from real-time inventory checks and cost queries (get_role_pricing), so an agent can clearly tell it apart from sibling 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with natural language examples, explicit exclusions, and names the alternative tool for cost questions. It also includes a hint about rush windows and instructs the agent not to present the result as a reservation. This is thorough and actionable.

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