Get availability

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond the schema, as it only restates the date-range scope without mentioning behavior such as return format or the optional athlete parameter for coach accounts. This is sufficient given the annotation coverage but adds minimal extra value.

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 entire description is one clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the core function, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not explain what an 'availability entry' is, nor does it mention the optional athlete parameter, which is important for coach accounts. Since there is no output schema, a tiny bit more context about the return shape could help, but overall it 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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including dates and the athlete field, so the description does not need to compensate. The description's mention of a 'date range' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('availability entries') with a specific scope ('for a date range'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_create_availability and tp_delete_availability, making its purpose obvious.

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 when to use the tool (for a date range), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as using tp_create_availability to add entries or tp_delete_availability to remove them. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the date range requirement.

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