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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden, and it delivers: it discloses agenda-awareness, org-controlled public exposure, provider resolution with clientId fallback, and that modes 1–3 hide provider details. It is less forthcoming about authentication/authorization requirements and pagination/error behavior.

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 a dense but organized paragraph; the first sentence states the core, and the numbered modes make the combinatorial behavior digestible. It does not waste words, though the length is high for a single-paragraph description.

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?

The description covers the five modes, fallback logic, and provider visibility; this is substantial for a tool with no output schema. Missing return format details and edge-case behavior (overlapping params, defaults) are the main gaps.

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 0%, and the description compensates by mapping five mode-specific parameter combinations (orgSlug, clientId, agendaId, serviceId, providerId) and a date range. However, it leaves duration, timezone, and apiKey semantics entirely to the schema (which has no descriptions), so the compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('available time slots'), defines the date-range scope, and differentiates five invocation modes tied to parameters. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like availability_get_provider_schedule by explaining the agenda/provider resolution behavior.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use before booking_create' and enumerates five modes, explaining when each parameter combination is appropriate. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusivity guidance.

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