vt_get_availability_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that prices are in the supplier's currency and pointing to the currency field for conversion — a non-obvious gotcha that affects how an agent should interpret results.

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 filler: the first front-loads the verb, resource, and result contents, and the second isolates the currency caveat as a NOTE. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main return categories and flags the currency gotcha, which is essential for correct interpretation. The view parameter is fully documented in the schema. It does not describe pagination or exact response nesting, but that is a minor gap given the openWorldHint and the detailed schema.

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%, so product_code and view are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning; its currency note refers to the response, not the inputs. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the availability schedule and pricing for a Viator product.' It enumerates the exact content returned — seasons, days of week, start times, unavailable dates, and per-age-band pricing — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vt_get_product or search tools.

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 purpose statement makes it obvious when to use this tool: whenever availability schedule and pricing for a Viator product are needed. The NOTE about supplier currency also redirects agents to vt_get_exchange_rates for conversion. It does not explicitly state exclusions such as 'use vt_get_product for product details,' so it stops short of a 5.

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