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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description does add useful disclosure that payroll identifiers are excluded from staff responses and leave notes are omitted. However, it never describes what an availability record actually contains or whether access is permission-scoped, leaving the data-shape opaque.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the redaction caveats follow. It is efficient, though the second sentence is slightly cryptic out of context.

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 single-param read with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the minimum plus redaction notes. It stops short of conveying what fields an availability returns (dates/times/shift linkage), which matters since no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the opaque non-UUID ID format. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the 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?

"Read one selected availability" names a specific verb (read), resource (availability), and singular scope, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling workfeed_list_availabilities. It does not explicitly name the sibling or state the ID-based lookup condition, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by "one selected" - an agent can infer this fetch is for a known record rather than a search. It never states when to prefer this over workfeed_list_availabilities, nor that the id must come from a prior read (that only appears in the schema).

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