preview_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. It discloses that the action validates and previews rather than submits, which implies no mutation, but it does not explicitly state that no poll changes are made or describe invalid-index error behavior.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and the Args bullets are minimal and informative. The arg list duplicates schema names but is warranted because the schema has no field descriptions.

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 3-param preview tool with an output schema, it covers purpose and all parameter semantics. It is less complete on routing: no explicit relation to submit_availability and no explicit statement that it does not modify the poll, which matters given there are no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the Args block adds valuable meaning: 'Zero-based indices' disambiguates slot_indices, and 'IANA timezone for labels' explains timezone's role. url's meaning is obvious from its name and context but is still included.

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 clear verb-resource pair: validate slot indices and preview availability, and the 'before submitting' clause distinguishes it from the sibling submit_availability. It could be stronger by explicitly naming that sibling, but the intended operation is recognizable.

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?

'before submitting' gives an implied usage context: call this as a dry-run ahead of submission. It does not name any alternative tools or state when not to use it, so an agent must infer routing from the tool name and sibling list.

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