feegow_available_schedule_v2

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It indicates an HTTP GET (implying read-only) and date format, but fails to disclose authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or what happens when no slots are available. The behavior is minimally described.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose and version. However, the inclusion of the HTTP method and path in parentheses adds minor clutter; a slightly more structured format could improve readability without sacrificing conciseness.

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, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of time slots with IDs, times, professionals). It does not, nor does it address the optional nature of all 7 parameters. The tool is a list operation, but completeness is lacking for an agent to use effectively without trial and error.

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 57%, and the description only adds meaning for 'data_start' and 'data_end' by specifying format (dd-mm-yyyy). Parameters like 'procedimento_id', 'profissional_id', 'especialidade_id', and 'query' are left without additional context beyond their names and type in 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 clearly states the tool lists available schedules (horários disponíveis) and identifies it as endpoint V2, distinguishing it from the probable V1 sibling 'feegow_available_schedule'. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or filtering capabilities beyond date range.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'feegow_professional_agenda' or 'feegow_create_appointment'. The description does not mention contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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