tutor_available_slots

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. There is no contradiction, but the description itself contributes nothing about behavior, limits, or return semantics.

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 extremely short but this is under-specification, not concise efficiency. The three-word phrase provides no actionable information and does not earn its place in the definition.

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 tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and many related siblings, the description is bare bones and leaves the agent to guess what the tool returns, how it behaves, and how it differs from alternatives. It is not nearly complete enough for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions none of the parameters and adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions, so it neither harms nor improves parameter understanding.

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 'Tutor Available Slots' is a direct restatement of the tool name/title and contains no verb, so it fails to explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., list, fetch, or search). It weakly hints at a resource but does not describe the action or scope.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_availabilities, get_availability, or coverage_tutors. The description gives no context for selection and does not mention any exclusions or conditions.

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