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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds important behavioral context: the change is public and affects the user's visibility in search, and it explicitly recommends confirmation before calling. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the social impact and consent requirement.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and the values, the second explains the impact and provides usage guidance. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description covers all necessary aspects: the action, the allowed values, the public impact, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with an enum and a description for the single parameter. The description lists the three enum values in prose, which adds readability but does not provide additional semantic information beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description offers no extra syntax or format details.

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 (change), the resource (the signed-in user's availability on their Foundaree profile), and the three possible states (available, open_to_offers, not_looking). It also explains the consequence (public, affects search visibility), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on bookings, connections, or people. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clear usage context: when the user says they have finished a job, are fully booked, or want to be found again. It also advises confirming with the user before calling, which is a strong operational guideline. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide selection among siblings.

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