plu_get_availabilities

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, side effects, or response characteristics. Merely stating 'get' implies reading but not explicitly.

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?

Extremely short, but under-specified. While front-loaded, it sacrifices informative content. 'Get availability periods (JSON)' is more of a stub than a complete description.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, description should provide context on expected output format, use case, or required setup. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%: description does not explain the 'propertyId' parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies type 'number'. User must infer that propertyId identifies the property for which to fetch availabilities.

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?

Description clearly states retrieving 'availability periods' in JSON format, which is a specific resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'plu_get_unavailabilities' by naming the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate, and the term 'periods' is vague; could be more precise.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plu_add_availability' or 'plu_get_unavailabilities'. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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