get_availability_guidanceHow availability is confirmed. No live calendar is published. Availability for a date is confirmed on inquiry, typically within two business days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds key behavioral details: there is no live calendar, and availability is confirmed on inquiry within two business days. This context helps the agent understand the tool's limitations.
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 concise with three short sentences, front-loading the key purpose. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the purpose and behavior. It is complete for a tool that provides guidance text.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 what the tool does: it explains how availability is confirmed, including that no live calendar is published and confirmation takes two business days. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_booking_info' which likely retrieves specific booking details.
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 that this tool is for understanding the availability confirmation process rather than checking live availability or making an inquiry, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'submit_speaking_inquiry'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: profile, topics, availability, booking process, and inquiry submission. There is no overlap; an agent can easily select the right tool based on the user's intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get_' for informational queries and 'submit_' for the action. The naming is uniform and predictable, making tool selection straightforward.
With exactly 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a speaker booking server. Each tool serves a clear purpose and there are no redundant or missing essential functions.
The tool surface covers the entire lifecycle of a speaking inquiry: profile discovery, topic details, availability guidance, booking procedures, and the actual submission. While some specifics (rates, exact dates) are only provided on inquiry, that is consistent with the server's stated design and leaves no dead ends.