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

Goes well beyond the annotations: openWorldHint=true is made concrete as 'attendees receive a real invitation,' and destructiveHint=false is qualified with 'this tool cannot move or delete anything it created' — an irreversibility constraint the annotation alone does not convey. The UTC/normalization rule adds another operational fact not in the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence adds a distinct constraint (precondition, danger, timezone). The 'Read the calendar first' sentence slightly buries the routing instruction mid-clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a write tool with real external side effects, the description covers prerequisites, hazard, and time semantics — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 only 11%, so the description carries the burden; it handles the time semantics well (UTC, conversion of the founder's local slot), but says nothing about title, location, attendees, companyId, connectionId, or the agentName pattern across the remaining 7 parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (creates), a specific resource (one event on the company's connected calendar), and the secondary effect (invites attendees who receive a real invitation). An agent can distinguish this write tool from the read sibling connection_list_connected_events without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions: 'Call it only for a time the member has confirmed' and 'Read the calendar first,' which routes the agent to the list tool before writing. It also names the failure mode (double-booking the member must undo by hand) that the precondition prevents.

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