easytable_list_dates

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result — each entry carries an ISO date plus an availability flag — which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about date-range limits, pagination, or auth, so it is not fully rich.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded. The second sentence about entry contents could arguably be folded in, but it earns its place by defining the return shape in the absence of an output schema.

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 a four-parameter read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the entry format. It is silent on how far ahead dates are listed, whether results are windowed or complete, and how this call relates to easytable_list_times, which an agent sequencing a booking flow would want to know.

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 75%, with id, lang, and type documented in the schema (including the helpful link-format hint for id) and only persons left bare. The description's 'restaurant area and party size' maps loosely onto type and persons but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is right.

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 — 'List bookable dates' — scoped to a restaurant area and party size, which is enough to separate it from easytable_list_times and easytable_find_bookings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 context (bookable dates for an area and party size) implies this is a discovery step used before easytable_list_times or easytable_create_booking, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the call sequence from the sibling names.

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