get_availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: the date window semantics (ISO-8601 UTC), the exact return shape, and that omitting the window yields the full horizon. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core function and key parameters; the second gives return format and usage nuance. Every word earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation details.

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 description covers the essential elements: purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and a key usage nuance. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present), it is largely complete. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention potential errors/pagination, but these are partially covered by the output schema and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains that 'slug' identifies the scheduling page and that 'from_iso/to_iso' form an optional ISO-8601 UTC window, with a note that omitting them means the full horizon. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could be slightly more explicit about individual parameter formatting edge cases.

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 a specific action ('Get bookable slots') on a specific resource ('scheduling page by its slug'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_scheduling_page (which likely returns page config) and list_scheduling_pages (which lists pages).

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 conveys when to use the tool (to retrieve availability slots, optionally constrained by a date window) and how to use it ('Omit the window for the page's full horizon'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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