set_availability_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses persistence ('saved to disk') and notification support, but lacks details on limits, idempotency, duplicate handling, or error conditions. Some transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with the core action and key behaviors (persistence, webhook support). 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers persistence and notification method but does not explain the response, error handling, or success indication. An agent might need more context to use it effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only describes the tool's overall purpose. Parameters are well-documented in the schema, so no extra semantics are needed.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'set up a persistent alert' with specific conditions 'when a preferred time slot becomes available'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_availability' (which checks existing slots) and 'list_availability_alerts' (which lists alerts), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description implies usage for monitoring future availability but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like 'check_availability' or 'find_available_games'. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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