getParticipantAvailability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied but not guaranteed.

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?

Three concise sentences: (1) purpose and use case, (2) when not to use with alternative, (3) prerequisite. No redundancy, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description is complete for usage intent but lacks details about return format and behavior (e.g., does it return free windows or busy slots? Pagination? Defaults for timezone and minDurationMinutes are mentioned in schema, not description. No output schema provided.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a prerequisite context (participantId from other tools) but does not enhance parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: inspect free time windows for exactly one participant. It specifies use cases (verify availability before booking, understand constraints) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool findMutualAvailability for group scheduling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use (single participant) and when not to (group scheduling, recommending findMutualAvailability instead). It also includes a prerequisite: the participant's UUID from createParticipant or listParticipants.

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