Check Responder Availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that, namely that results split into scheduled and not-scheduled users and that shift times and hours are clipped to the requested window. The UTC whole-day inclusion rule for date-only end dates is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then return behavior. Each sentence adds a distinct fact with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. The description still supplies the interpretation rules an agent needs (clipping, inclusive UTC day) and the pre-assignment use case, leaving nothing material missing for a 3-parameter read tool.

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 real semantics beyond the schema: window clipping and the fact that a date-only end date includes that entire UTC day. The user_ids resolution path is documented in the schema rather than the description, so it is not double-counted.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check if specific users are scheduled for on-call') and scopes it to a date range and a user list, which separates it from listing tools like list_shifts or get_schedule_shifts. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives two concrete usage scenarios: verifying at-risk users surfaced by On-Call Health, and pre-assignment availability checks. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative for adjacent needs such as viewing a full schedule, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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