search_availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description carries a lower burden. The description adds value by explaining the three-part filter (skill, free time, geo range), which aligns with agent expectations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core functionality, and the second efficiently provides context about the booking engine.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the filtering logic completely for a search tool. The only minor gap is omitting what happens with no results, but that is implied.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description ties parameters together conceptually ('do the service'=service, 'free at the slot'=date/time, 'within range'=lat/lon/radius) but adds no detailed parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool finds staff who can perform the service, are free at the specified slot, and optionally within a geographic range. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_staff' and 'find_next_available' by mentioning it uses the same filter as the booking engine.

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 implies usage context by stating it matches the booking engine's filter logic, suggesting it's appropriate when checking availability for a specific service/time/location. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'find_next_available' for next-slot searches.

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