Check Availability

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it's a lead-time guidance tool, not a real-time check, and explains the underlying network-driven staffing model. This goes beyond the annotation, though more detail on how lead-time is computed would enhance transparency.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, provide example queries, and clarify limitations. No redundant words, every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral caveats. However, it doesn't specify the exact return format or fields, which would improve completeness for the agent. Still, it's fairly complete for the intended use case.

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%—every parameter has a description. The tool description adds context by explaining how parameters (city tier, date) influence output, and provides example uses. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool checks expected staffing availability and returns lead-time guidance based on city tier and event date. It provides example queries that make the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cities or request_quote.

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?

Explicitly spells out when to use this tool with example questions, and clarifies it's not a real-time inventory check, noting the TempGuru model of staffing on demand. This helps the agent avoid misuse and understand alternatives.

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