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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the maximum window and default person behavior, but does not mention permissions, pagination, error behavior, or the exact response shape.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the returned data, then adds the key window constraint and default behavior. Every phrase adds useful 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 four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the return categories and window limit, but omits shop_id semantics and response format details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the person_id default and the from/to window constraint, but it never explains the required shop_id parameter.

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 clearly states the resource and returned data: a worker's weekly hours, time off, and booked visits within a date window. It is specific enough to distinguish this as an availability-read tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like availability_setHours or availability_addTimeOff.

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 gives useful context with the 62-day window limit and the 'defaults to me' behavior, implying this is for retrieving availability. However, it does not state when to use this versus related tools such as schedule_events or availability_setHours.

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