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

With readOnlyHint already in annotations, the description adds valuable context beyond the safety profile: plan and permission requirements, the exact API endpoint, and the 62-day range limit. It does not cover pagination behavior or response format, but for a read-only reporting tool this is a solid level of disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by prerequisites and endpoint. No filler; each sentence delivers a distinct piece of information.

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 seven-parameter, read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, permission requirements, and endpoint. The schema fully documents pagination and filtering parameters, so nothing essential is missing.

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 seven parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the 62-day range and availability status types but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving employee availability from Shiftbase's availability report. It scopes the operation to a date range of at most 62 days and clarifies the available/unavailable, all-day/from-a-time variants. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_absence or get_timesheet without needing to name them.

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?

It provides clear prerequisites: Basic plan and 'View reports' permission, and specifies the underlying endpoint (POST /reports/availability) and that it is read-only. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_absence or get_roster, but the context is sufficient to infer usage.

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