signupgenius_report_available

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: auth requirements, scope limitation to key-holder-created sheets, and unsupported session mode. It doesn't describe output format or pagination, but for a read-only report with these constraints, the added detail is strong.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints and an explicit alternative. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, scope limits, and the recommended alternative. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact deliverable (e.g., columns of the report), but the phrase 'slots that are still open/empty' sufficiently sets expectations.

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% and the signupId parameter is already described in the schema as 'Sign-up ID (signupid)'. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific resource (a sign-up) and scope (slots that are still open/empty), and differentiates from siblings by contrasting with signupgenius_list_slots for slot-level detail. Though 'Report' is a noun, the intent is unmistakable and the scope restriction separates it from report_filled/report_all.

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?

It explicitly says when not to use this tool ('For slot dates, times and availability on ANY sign-up... prefer signupgenius_list_slots') and names the alternative. It also states prerequisites (SIGNUPGENIUS_USER_KEY, Pro subscription, session mode not supported, only sheets the key-holder created), giving clear selection criteria.

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