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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context: one to five future windows, ISO 8601 with timezone offsets, endAt after startAt, and explicitly that it does not confirm an appointment. It does not explain reconciliation or concurrency behavior around expectedVersion.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every sentence adds useful information, especially the non-confirmation caveat.

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 mutation with five required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It omits the optimistic-concurrency meaning of expectedVersion and the fact that confirmed must be true, both critical for correct invocation, even though an output schema exists.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially explains the windows payload, including count, future times, ISO 8601 format, and ordering, but leaves sessionToken, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, and the required confirmed=true flag undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: add one to five future availability windows to the verified inquiry. It clarifies an important non-effect, that this does not confirm an appointment, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as viewings.propose_availability.

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 implies usage by referring to a verified inquiry, but it does not state when to choose this tool over propose_availability, respond_to_proposal, or other viewing tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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