Check availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that, earning no extra credit. It does add genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the 30-minute slot granularity and the required date format, though it says nothing about timezone handling, return format, or whether results are per-customer.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a two-word safety tag; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations, which is the only wasted token.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation but leaves real gaps: no timezone, no indication of what the response contains, and no note that this is a global rather than per-customer check. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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, and it partially does: it pins the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and establishes that 'times' are 30-minute slots. It never explains the HH:MM format of each time entry or the 16-item cap already present in the schema.

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 verb (check) and a precisely scoped resource (which of the given 30-minute timeslots are available on a date), which is enough to tell it apart from the booking-mutation siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or ordering hint (e.g. call before create_booking), and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the pre-booking availability probe from the name alone.

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