calculate_availability

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the data source (cleared and active alerts) and warning about performance implications of broad queries. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by useful operational caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an analytical tool with fully documented optional parameters and read-only annotations, the description provides enough to understand what is computed and how to scope calls efficiently. It does not detail the exact return shape, but it names the key outputs (uptime, MTTR, per-device breakdown), which is sufficient for 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 every parameter is already documented with descriptions and defaults. The description reinforces the hours_back default and the performance value of device_id/group_id filtering, but it does not add substantially new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and identifies the resource ('availability percentage from alert history') plus the derived outputs (uptime metrics, MTTR, per-device breakdown). It is clear and distinct in function, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with neighboring analytics tools like calculate_error_budget or get_alert_statistics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The 'Common mistakes' note gives parameter-level tips, such as narrowing scope for performance, but it does not state when this tool is appropriate or when another tool should be used instead.

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