signupgenius_report_available

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it requires a Pro subscription with a user key and does not support session mode. This is valuable operational context that the annotation does not convey. It does not contradict the read-only hint and adds meaningful constraints for the agent to consider before invocation.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('restricted to slots that are still open/empty') followed by the key requirement. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information: what it does and the required auth setup. It does not explain the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a report tool make this acceptable. The description is complete enough for the agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100%, with signupId clearly described in the schema itself. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning or examples, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool reports slots that are still open/empty for a specific sign-up, using the resource ('sign-up') and the specific scope ('open/empty'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like signupgenius_report_filled and signupgenius_report_all, which focus on filled or all slots respectively. The verb is implicit but unambiguous, given the tool name and description.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing open slots) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does provide a key precondition: requires SIGNUPGENIUS_USER_KEY (Pro subscription) and no session mode, which is practical guidance. However, it lacks direct 'when-to-use vs. alternative' language, so it earns a middle score.

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