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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read, the description adds real value: the 100-day maximum window and the repeat semantics (weekly/fortnightly). It does not mention pagination or how large result sets are handled, which keeps it below a 5.

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 what the tool returns, followed by the key constraint and the routing to the alternative. No wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by sketching the returned fields (start/end time, repeat cadence). Complete enough to call correctly, though pagination and volume behavior are unaddressed.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the 100-day constraint on endDate. The description reinforces the window but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (practitioner working-hours availability) with scope (per date and location) and explicitly names the sibling splose_find_free_slots as the different, bookable-slots tool. An agent can disambiguate without opening either 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 says this is the roster, not the open slots, and directs the agent to splose_find_free_slots for bookable times. That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement.

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