get_availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the slot computation draws on business hours, service duration, buffer, minimum notice and existing bookings, and the 'Empty on a closed day' note flags an important edge case an agent would otherwise misread as an error.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole text is three short sentences with no filler. The middle sentence is a verbless list fragment, which reads as telegraphic rather than flowing prose, but it is dense with useful information rather than padded.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is computed, what the result represents, and the empty-result case. Return shape details (list of timestamps vs. free/busy windows, timezone of the returned slots) are not stated, which is the main remaining gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that the output is scoped to a single day and hints that service duration affects slot length, but it adds no syntax, format or interaction detail (e.g. how city/state interact with service_type) beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get availability... the open slots for one day') and enumerates the inputs that shape the result: business hours, service duration, buffer, minimum notice, existing bookings. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling such as book_appointment or list_appointments, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-booking slot lookup, and 'What the bot and the portal picker offer' signals that results match the customer-facing surfaces. There is no explicit 'call this before book_appointment' instruction and no statement of when not to use it or what to do if the result is empty.

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