Find availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that dates are inclusive and in YYYY-MM-DD format, and that the tool returns 'startable times with the matching provider.' However, it omits details about pagination (despite a limit parameter), default behavior, and what happens when no slots are found. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose. The first sentence covers the main action and date format, while the second adds optional restriction and return type. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. However, it lacks details about the output format (structure of 'startable times'), default limit behavior, and error conditions. An agent might need to infer these from context, making it slightly incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that the date range is inclusive and specifying the date format, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the tool finds open appointment slots for a service within a date range, distinguishing it from sibling tools like book_appointment, cancel_appointment, list_my_appointments, list_providers, and list_services. The verb 'find' and the resource 'availability' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool: to find open slots for a service in a date range, with an optional providerId restriction. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for other tasks (e.g., booking or listing appointments). This is sufficient for an AI agent.

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