check_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameters are used to fetch availability, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like parameter interactions or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get available time slots') and the resource ('for a specific restaurant on a given date'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'search_restaurants' or 'make_reservation', which might also involve availability-related functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status from 'check_auth_status'), exclusions (e.g., not for booking), or comparisons to siblings like 'search_restaurants' (which might list restaurants without checking slots). This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage.

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