list_blockouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that returned times are in the church's time zone — but says nothing about ordering, whether past blockouts are excluded by default, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the time-zone caveat placed up front. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being a deliberate structural choice.

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 simple zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, a short description is defensible, and the time-zone note is valuable. However, the wholly undocumented 'include_past' parameter leaves a real gap an agent would need to close elsewhere.

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% for the single parameter 'include_past', and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot learn from the description that setting include_past=true is how past blockouts are surfaced, so the parameter's meaning must be guessed.

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 names the resource ('blockout dates') and implies a read via 'Your', but supplies no verb of its own; the agent must rely on the tool name 'list_blockouts'. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings add_blockout, remove_blockout, or skip_blockout_date.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives among the several blockout-related siblings. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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