get_activity_availability

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

With no annotations, the description adds crucial context: it is schedule-level (not real-time), prices are converted to agency currency, and booking requires re-confirmation. It implies read-only by saying 'check', but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive. The warning about re-confirmation is a valuable behavioral note.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, conversion detail, and caveat. No redundancy or filler; appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers purpose, input scope, key behaviors, and a warning. It doesn't specify exact response fields, but 'operating schedule and per-person/total pricing' gives a good indication. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 covers date and productCodes but not travelers. The description mentions 'per-person/total pricing', which hints at travelers' role, but doesn't explicitly define the parameter or its constraints. Thus it adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing travelers description.

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?

Clear verb 'Check' with specific resource ('Viator product codes'), scope ('shortlisted'), and time ('specific date'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing the 'search_activities shortlist', making its role obvious.

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 indicates this is a follow-up to search_activities, for checking schedule and pricing on shortlisted codes. It also notes the schedule-level nature and advises re-confirmation, which guides the agent on appropriate use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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