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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: the confidence field can be 'stale with a note', and critically it warns that 'the slot is held the moment the draft is created'. That hold side-effect is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the inline enumeration of operating_state values makes the middle dense and run-on. Slightly overloaded, yet no sentence is wasted.

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 does the work of describing returns (operating_state, confidence, earliest, price, auto-book behavior). This is thorough for an availability tool; the main remaining gap is the unexplained required slug parameter.

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 coverage is only 50% (slug and service_sku are undocumented in the schema). The description compensates well for service_sku by explaining it sizes windows for the service's duration and crew, but leaves slug entirely unexplained and adds nothing about date/days beyond their schema text.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: it returns 'live bookable windows over the next days' and names the underlying schedule sources (hours, crew, jobs, holds, blocks). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_business or get_services.

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 explains when to pass service_sku (to get windows sized for that service's duration and crew) and routes the agent downstream to place_service_request or book_slot using a slot's start. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context and alternatives are clear.

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