Booking availability

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, explaining the real-time nature of the data (based on technician capacity, working hours, service territory) and the purpose of preventing unschedulable bookings. No contradictions with annotations.

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 relatively concise (4 sentences), but the first sentence is redundant as it repeats the title. The remaining sentences provide value. Could be slightly shorter by removing the first line.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of time windows, pagination, error handling). It covers the core purpose and usage but leaves some gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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?

Input schema already describes all 3 parameters (to, from, x_timezone) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond that, but implies a date range context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'booking windows' clearly. It explains that it returns bookable date/time windows based on technician capacity, working hours, and service territory coverage. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'listMatchingSlots', the context implies a distinct role in preventing unschedulable 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 explicitly advises calling this before creating a job request and offering only the returned windows to prevent unschedulable bookings. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not list when not to use or mention alternatives.

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