List class passes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds data-model context (what a class pass is, cost unit convention) but says nothing about the redaction behavior of include_contact_details or any auth/rate-limit traits beyond what annotations give.

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 dense sentences that front-load the data-model definition before the filter list. There is some redundancy with the schema on filter names and the cost unit, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (usage allowance, type, number available, day restriction). Combined with the filter coverage and the safety annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the redaction semantics of include_contact_details are left to the schema.

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 88%, so the schema already documents every filter including the comparison-operator shape and the cost unit. The description largely restates these (usage type, cost, usage_allowance, use_restricted_for_days) and adds only one concrete example (filter[cost][gte]=2000), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (class passes) and defines it parenthetically as 'pre-purchased bundles of bookings', then enumerates the fields it returns (usage allowance, type, number available, day restriction). The verb is implied by the name rather than stated, and no sibling is named, but the resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from get_event/list_events siblings.

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 lists the available filters, which implies how to narrow a search, but never states when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. Usage is inferred from the filter catalogue rather than spelled out.

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