get_available_slots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It includes a critical behavioral warning: using incorrect parameter names ('startTime/endTime') results in a 400 error. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with missing optional parameters. This is a partial but important disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second sentence is a critical warning front-loaded with 'IMPORTANT'. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is very brief. It does not explain how the tool works (e.g., how event_type_id/slug are used, what 'username_list' does, how duration interacts with slots, or what the output contains). The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks an overview of the tool's behavior, prerequisites, or typical usage flow.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly warning against using 'startTime/endTime' and directing to use 'start/end' instead. This prevents a common error and is not present in the schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get available booking slots for an event type.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('available booking slots'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'reserve_slot' (which reserves a slot) and 'list_bookings' (which lists 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before booking, nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'get_calendar_busy_times' or 'list_event_types'. The only usage hint is an implementation note about parameter names, not about tool selection.

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