Get Availability

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool returns bookings overlapping the range rather than a computed availability calendar, and highlights the lack of a calendar endpoint. This helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then provides essential context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 does mention that the return is bookings overlapping the range, which is essential. It also discloses the lack of a calendar endpoint. While it doesn't detail the exact structure of returned bookings or handle edge cases, the description is complete enough for a read-only query tool with good annotations.

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 only 50%, with descriptions for 'from' and 'to' but not for 'status' or 'property_id'. The description adds meaning for the date range and clarifies the output is bookings overlapping the range, but it does not explain the 'status' parameter's role or values. Property_id is self-explanatory from its name, so the description partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 shows what's booked/blocked for a property in a date range, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bookings by explaining that availability is derived from bookings, not directly provided by a calendar endpoint.

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 when to use it: when you need availability for a property over a date range. It provides context that there is no calendar endpoint and that availability is derived from bookings, which gives a clear mental model. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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