Availability calendar

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns day-by-day availability, but it does not disclose the output format, whether the range is inclusive, or any auth/rate limits. The lack of such details is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then a practical example. No redundant or filler content is present, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not describe the response structure, meaning of optional parameters (adults/children), or how it relates to the similar-sounding get_availability sibling. The existing context is not enough for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 low (20% – only property has a description). The description mentions a date range and format YYYY-MM-DD, but this is redundant with the schema's pattern. It does not explain the adults/children parameters or how they interact with availability, leaving a large semantic gap.

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 provides 'day-by-day availability over a date range', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings through 'day-by-day' granularity, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_availability, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Good for "which days are free in August"' implies a use case for checking availability across a range, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is implied through example rather than stated.

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