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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /scheduling/available-timeslots) and the input-mode constraint, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or that availability depends on external calendar state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the one-day scope before the parameter modes, ending with the endpoint. 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?

For a 10-parameter read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers scope, mode selection, and optional filters adequately. Minor gap: it never characterizes what comes back from a paginated availability call, though the page/per_page schema fields partially fill that in.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description goes beyond it by synthesizing the cross-parameter rule (appointment_id OR duration+interval) that the schema only states piecemeal in individual field descriptions. It does not add format or unit detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource (bookable timeslots) plus hard scope: exactly ONE day, in a given timezone, for a proposed or existing appointment. The emphasized 'ONE day' implicitly separates it from the sibling aryeo_list_available_dates, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the two mutually exclusive invocation modes: 'Give either appointment_id, or duration + interval (minutes)', and notes user restriction and order tie-in are optional. No exclusions or named alternatives beyond that, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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