plu_get_availabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses rate-limiting behavior, which is key for an API tool, but lacks details on error handling, null responses, or authentication requirements. The '(JSON API)' tag implies response format but adds little depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical usage warning. No extraneous words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and one behavioral caveat (rate limits). However, it omits return format, pagination (if any), and error scenarios, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'propertyId', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Property ID'. Baseline is 3 as per rubric.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'availability periods for a property', distinguishing it from mutation tools (add, delete) and the sibling 'plu_get_unavailabilities'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_unavailabilities, relying on name contrast.

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 a useful rate-limit guidance ('prefer sequential calls'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search or list tools). The guidance is performance-oriented rather than decision-oriented.

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