kronos_get_available_slots

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds worthwhile behavioral context: it returns only free slots filtered by the API, and it returns the vendor JSON raw with an undocumented response format. That goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 well structured: purpose and differentiation first, followed by a compact Args block, a Returns caveat, and concrete Usage examples. Every section earns its place and no filler is present.

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 read-only availability lookup, the description covers the endpoint, main use case, sibling distinction, parameter summary, raw return behavior, and example requests. With annotations already covering safety and idempotency, nothing essential is missing.

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?

Although the signal reports 0% schema description coverage, the nested schema actually documents each parameter, and the description enumerates all five parameters with requiredness, defaults, and ranges. It also adds the context that resource_id is the list used for showing client availability, which helps the agent select values.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Получить только СВОБОДНЫЕ слоты времени') and the API endpoint. It explicitly contrasts with sibling kronos_get_time_slots by noting occupied slots are already filtered out, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous and well-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?

The description contains explicit 'Use when' / 'Don't use when' guidance with a concrete example and names the exact alternative tool (kronos_get_time_slots) for the opposite need. This leaves no doubt about when to select this tool versus its siblings.

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