Get team availability

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

No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior. Discloses that weekends and holidays are excluded from working days, half-day counts as 0.5, people are returned least-available first, pending days are reported separately and not subtracted, and the read-only nature.

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?

Description is well-structured and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrases like 'the usual question'.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains all output fields (workingDays, daysOff, pendingDaysOff, availableDays, availability, totals, absences). With 4 optional parameters and no required ones, the coverage is complete.

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%, but description adds significant value: explains defaults for 'from' (today) and 'to' (30 days after from), clarifies that omitting 'team' returns the user's own team, and 'person' narrows to matching names. This goes 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 clearly states it is for capacity planning, listing per-person availability metrics (available days, working days, days off, pending days, availability fraction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_time_off_requests or get_time_off_balance by aggregating over a date range with different output fields.

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 says 'Built for capacity planning: a PO sizing a sprint needs to know who is away before committing to a load.' It explains that pending days are not subtracted from available days. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention sibling alternatives by name.

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