shelf_available_assets

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them: the availability/time-window notion is already expressed by the required bookingFrom and bookingTo schema fields, and pagination behavior, default page size, and how availability conflicts are computed are all undisclosed.

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?

A single, tightly front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a seven-parameter tool, which is captured under contextual completeness rather than here.

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 seven-parameter availability query with no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: it does not explain the search parameter, pagination defaults, the bookingId inclusion rule, or the relationship to the sibling listing tools. The schema covers most fields, but the description does nothing to complete the picture an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 86%, so the schema already documents page, perPage, orgId, bookingId, and the ISO date params. The description contributes no additional meaning for any of the seven parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Assets available for booking in a given period' identifies the resource and the scoping window, but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never says it is a list/query operation. It also does not distinguish this from the sibling shelf_list_assets or shelf_booking_add_assets, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be preferred over shelf_list_assets when checking availability, nor what happens if bookingFrom/bookingTo are omitted or cover a partial period.

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