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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns the configured base schedule, not dynamic free slots, which is a key behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention potential errors, authorization requirements, or return format, but for a simple getter, the provided transparency is above average.

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. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying parenthetical, while the second sentence directs to the modifier. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, clarifies the scope, and points to the relevant modification tool. It does not mention required parameters or response details, but the schema covers parameter names and the purpose is clear enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 compensate by explaining parameter meanings or formats. It does not mention orgSlug, providerId, or apiKey at all. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, which is nothing.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'configured weekly availability schedule for a provider'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool availability_get_slots by explicitly noting 'not free slots, but the base configuration', and references admin_set_availability for modification, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the user this tool is for the base configuration, not free slots, implying that availability_get_slots should be used for free slots. It also points to admin_set_availability as the tool for modifying the schedule, thereby giving clear alternatives.

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