Check availability

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: 15-minute increments, opening-hours constraint, exclusion of past times, and the closed=true return flag. This is strong additional transparency, though it does not cover every edge case like no-qualified-staff behavior.

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 core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause adds useful detail.

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 no output schema, the description explains the essential return semantics: open start times, interval granularity, business-hours scoping, past-time exclusion, and the closed flag. It does not describe the full response shape or grouping, but it gives an agent enough to invoke and interpret the result reasonably.

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 67%, with service_id lacking a description. The description helps by referring to 'a service' and 'per qualified staff member', which clarifies service_id and the intended role of staff_id. But it does not fully specify optional staff_id behavior or the exact meaning of all parameters, so the schema still carries much of the load.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Open start times for a service on a date, per qualified staff member, in 15-minute steps within opening hours.' It also adds distinguishing details (past times excluded, closed=true on shut days) and is readily distinguishable from siblings like create_booking or list_services.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate—checking open start times for a specific service, date, and optional staff member. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use list_bookings to see existing appointments'.

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