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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' only restates structured data; the endpoint note POST /availability/days/search adds little. It does clarify the return is day-level availability, but omits behavior like how defaults (resources, duration) affect results or result limits.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence plus two short supporting fragments; every clause (calendar view, use-intervals-for-times, read-only, endpoint) carries information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey the shape of the result (which days have availability). Combined with fully documented parameters it is largely complete, though it could mention result caps or empty-result semantics for a 9-parameter search.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what's there, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (days with availability) and scopes the return granularity as a calendar view, explicitly contrasting with appointedd_find_available_intervals for times.

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?

Names the sibling alternative appointedd_find_available_intervals and the condition that selects it (when you need times rather than days), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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