libcal_check_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' implies a non-destructive read operation, and the date-specific scope is clear. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no booking is made, nor does it mention authentication requirements or output characteristics. These gaps are notable but not severe for an availability-check tool.

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 two compact sentences plus a short category list. The core purpose is front-loaded, the differentiation is in the second sentence, and there is no wasted wording.

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 tool with 4 documented parameters and a clear purpose, the description is largely complete. The category list and date-scope note cover the key details. The main omission is the response shape (what an 'open slot' looks like), which matters more because there is no output schema, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor 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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds concrete valid category values ('davis-cubes, davis-study-rooms, davis-computers'), which is not in the schema's generic 'Space category id' description. This gives the agent actionable parameter knowledge beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Check open slots on ONE specific date.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling libcal_suggest, which is the cross-day ranked search, so an agent can clearly tell them apart.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('on ONE specific date') and names the alternative for a different case ('For smart ranked search across days, use libcal_suggest instead'). This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling without leaving it to inference.

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