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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns hours per staff with staffId, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects (likely none, as it is a read operation), nor does it clarify edge cases like no availability or invalid dates. The description is functional but not deeply transparent.

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 two concise sentences, providing the core purpose and key output detail (staffId) without fluff. It is bilingual but efficient, with no wasted words. Front-loads the main action immediately.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, optional filter, and return format. It lacks details on error cases or no-slot scenarios, but for a basic availability query, it is reasonably complete. The links to related tools (buscar_negocios, ver_negocio, reservar_cita) enhance completeness.

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 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds valuable cross-tool context, e.g., slug is 'from buscar_negocios' and service name is 'as shown by ver_negocio', which helps the agent know where to get these values. It also clarifies the servicio is optional. This goes beyond the schema and earns a higher score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Free appointment slots for a date' and 'Returns hours per staff member with staffId'. It uses a specific verb (consultar/check availability) and resource (appointment slots), and distinguishes from siblings like reservar_cita by explicitly noting the output is 'ready for reservar_cita', indicating it is a pre-booking step.

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 implies the use case: it is for checking availability before booking, as indicated by 'ready for reservar_cita'. It also mentions the optional service filter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling context makes the flow clear. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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