get_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add non-obvious behavior: results are filtered through the user's focus blocks, buffer rules, and active holds across sibling agents. It does not spell out the read-only nature beyond the verb 'List', nor permissions or rate limits, but the filtering pipeline is valuable behavioral context.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds time-format and filtering details in two compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the 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 shape need not be explained, and the behavioral filtering is covered. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing semantics for holds, duration, and granularity make the definition incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that start/end are ISO 8601 strings via the '[start, end)' notation; it says nothing about include_holds (default true), duration_minutes (default 30), or granularity_minutes (default 15), leaving three of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('List slots open to the calling agent') with an explicit interval scope '[start, end)'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling hold/booking/approval tools because it queries availability rather than mutating holds.

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 context is clear: use this to see open slots within a window, and the description notes that results are filtered by focus blocks, buffer rules, and sibling-agent holds. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_hold) or state when not to use it, keeping it below a 5.

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