rm_get_user_availability

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Query', but it does not contradict the annotations either. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 one concise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning. It could add more detail without losing efficiency, but as written it is well-sized.

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 presence of an output schema means return values do not need explaining here. The tool is a fairly simple read query, and annotations cover behavioral safety. However, date parameter semantics and the relationship to confusable siblings remain unclear, so the definition is only minimally complete for effective invocation.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the 'user' aspect of user_id and says nothing about from_date/to_date ranges, default null behavior, or how these dates relate to the availability calculation. The parameter semantics are therefore insufficiently explained.

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 verb and resource: 'Query scheduled hours vs available capacity for a user.' This is concrete and immediately understood. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling rm_get_user_utilization, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_get_user_utilization or other user-related queries. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the basic statement of what it queries. The agent must infer the intended use case.

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