getScheduleItems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, how filters like date ranges or staff/location IDs affect results, or what the response contains. The wording 'schedule items/availability' is too generic to convey meaningful behavioral nuance.

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 short and front-loaded, with no redundant text. However, it is under-specified to the point of marginal utility: it essentially restates the tool name plus a vague synonym. It is concise but does not earn its place by adding meaningful information beyond the name.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description provides no context on what the returned data looks like, whether the parameters are filters, or how to interpret the results. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool effectively, especially given the large set of similar schedule-related tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema parameters have terse descriptions (e.g., 'End date', 'Staff IDs'), but the tool description adds no extra context about how these parameters interact or what forms they take. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail, but it also does not contradict it.

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 'Get schedule items/availability' identifies the resource as schedule items/availability, which is clearer than a tautology but still vague. It doesn't specify the exact nature of the items or distinguish from similar siblings like getClassSchedules or getBookableItems, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of the many related sibling tools. There is no mention of alternative tools, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess at the appropriate context.

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