Sprawdzenie terminu EstiCRM

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds only the calendar-identification detail; it does not disclose extra behavior such as overlap semantics or result handling, though the presence of an output schema reduces that need.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the full purpose without extraneous content. It earns its place and does not repeat schema data.

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 simple read-only availability check with complete annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit note on when to prefer this over the calendar-events sibling, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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 schema leaves 'kalendarz' undocumented except for maxLength; the description compensates by indicating it is the calendar identified by the agent's email address. The od/do time-range parameters are already described in the schema, so the description's contribution is concentrated where it is needed.

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 ('Sprawdza dostępność') and names the resource ('terminu w kalendarzu... adresem e-mail agenta'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like esticrm_wydarzenia_kalendarza, which would list calendar events rather than check availability.

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 clearly implies the tool is for checking availability in an agent's calendar, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions and does not point to alternatives such as esticrm_wydarzenia_kalendarza. Usage context is inferred from the purpose rather than stated.

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