get_availability

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), so the description is free to add the operationally important details it does: the unknown-vs-zero semantic trap for missing days, and the cost model (20 default rows, 100 max, one data unit per page). Cost and data-interpretation caveats are exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how to read it, then the use case, then the two behavioral caveats. No sentence is filler and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to explain the return shape (observed-available vs total per day) and the meaning of absent days, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around response envelope/error behavior, but the essential interpretive context is present.

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 gpu, provider, and the pagination object are already fully documented. The description only restates the optional provider limit and the pagination defaults/maximum, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with precise scope: day-by-day stock availability for one GPU over the last seven days, broken out by provider and node size. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly assigning price data to get_prices, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear intended use ("judge how reliably a GPU can be found in stock") and routes price questions to get_prices, which is a real alternative. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it relates to get_price_history / get_market_snapshot beyond the price hand-off.

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