resolve_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool does not reserve copies. Missing are details on whether it modifies any data, required permissions, side effects (e.g., caching), limitations (e.g., only checks against a specific collection), or rate limits. The single behavioral trait is helpful but insufficient.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but comes at the expense of necessary detail. It lacks structure such as bullet points or sections. While every word earns its place, the description is underspecified for practical use, earning an average score.

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 an output schema and one parameter (with complex internals), the description fails to explain how the tool is used in practice. It does not address the input's nested structure, the meaning of 'substitutes', or what the output contains. An agent would struggle to form a correct request without additional context.

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%. The description does not mention any parameters or explain what 'ResolveAvailabilityRequest', 'collection_id', 'substitutes', etc., represent. The complex nested structure with arrays and enums (e.g., 'proxy_policy' likely has valid values) is entirely undocumented in the description. This leaves the AI agent with no guidance beyond raw schema names.

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 action ('resolve complete decks against physical copies') and adds a critical constraint ('without reserving them'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_fulfillment_plan and price_purchases, which involve reservations or purchases. However, 'resolve' is somewhat abstract and could be more explicit (e.g., '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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate whether this tool should be used before creating a fulfillment plan or after loading a deck. No exclusions or context are given.

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