tock_get_availability

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that reservations are prepaid tickets and that the tool returns the full open-date/time set, with optional date filtering. It also clarifies the tool does not perform bookings, ensuring agents understand its scope.

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 with no wasted words: the first describes what the tool does, the second adds critical behavioral context and user action. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately hints at the return structure (experiences with price, party sizes, cancellation policy, dates/times). For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by explaining how 'date' focuses the summary and that 'party_size' filters experiences. This exceeds the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 gets a venue's bookable calendar with experiences, pricing, cancellation policy, and open dates/times. The verb 'Get' and resource 'availability' are specific and distinct from siblings like tock_get_restaurant (venue details) and tock_list_reservations (existing bookings).

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 implicitly guides usage by stating what the tool returns and noting it does not book; users are directed to exploretock.com for reservations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for booking or detailed venue info.

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