get_booking_availability

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the enabled:false return case, server-side range clamping, and the special exclusion of a booking's own slot when rescheduling. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral details an agent needs.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by edge cases and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and adds information an agent cannot reliably infer from schema or annotations alone.

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 read-only availability tool with an output schema, annotations, and related siblings, the description covers the core behavior, failure mode (enabled:false), range limiting, rescheduling prerequisite, and bookingId semantics. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value for bookingId by explaining its rescheduling purpose and the 'own slot is not counted as taken' behavior. It also clarifies that date ranges may be clamped server-side, going beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'the current team's bookable time slots in a date range', and explains how the slots are computed ('weekly booking rules minus what is already taken'). This clearly distinguishes it from booking-management siblings like list_bookings or update_booking_status.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this before reschedule_booking, explains why ('a start time outside the available slots is rejected'), and tells when to pass bookingId. This gives an agent a clear decision rule for when and how to use the tool.

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