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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool creates a meeting ('Agenda una reunion'), fixes the duration to 30 minutes, and requires an authenticated MCP request with a specific scope. It does not disclose return behavior or potential side effects like calendar invitations, but the core behavioral traits are adequately covered.

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 long and front-loads the core action and duration before the auth prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 6-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential workflow context: check availability first, book a fixed 30-minute slot, and authenticate with the required scope. It could mention what the response contains or what happens after a successful booking, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already documents 83% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that startsAt must be a time returned by check_availability and reinforces the 30-minute duration, but these are largely restatements of schema descriptions. No substantial new parameter-level meaning is added.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it schedules a 30-minute meeting with Alfabot. It also clearly differentiates from siblings check_availability and get_plans because it is the action that actually books the meeting.

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 explicitly instructs that the meeting time must come from check_availability, giving the agent a clear prerequisite and workflow. It also notes the required Authorization header and scope. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the context is strong enough to route the agent correctly.

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