aircall_check_availability

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. The description adds the temporal qualifier 'currently', implying real-time status, but doesn't disclose return format or further behavioral details. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, direct sentence that gets straight to the point. No filler, unnecessary jargon, or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and the annotations provide safety context. However, with no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent receives (e.g., a boolean or availability status). It says 'check' but not 'returns true/false', which is a minor gap. Still, for a simple read-only check, this is adequate.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (user_id) with a clear description 'The user ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no gap to compensate for.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' and names a precise resource: 'if a specific user is currently available to take calls.' It clearly distinguishes from a generic 'get_user' tool by focusing on current availability, which is a unique purpose. The scope is explicit and narrow.

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?

The description implies a clear use case: checking a user's availability before routing a call. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is self-evident. Given the sibling tools include 'aircall_get_user' and 'aircall_list_availabilities', some comparison would strengthen this, but the intended usage is still unambiguous.

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