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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: each returned time carries a link that opens the booking form with the time pre-selected, and the actual confirmation/booking happens on the site, not through this tool. That clarifies the read-only boundary of the call.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the mechanics and the usage condition. Each sentence earns its place, though the consultant credential aside ('fractional CMO and RevOps consultant') is mildly promotional rather than operational.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so adequately by describing the shape of each entry (a time plus a booking link). Combined with fully documented optional params and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret the tool.

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%, with days (1-21), timezone (IANA), and meetingType fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 is correct given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('List open times for a free call with Rahul D Sarker') with the source of truth ('live from his calendar'). This is instantly distinguishable from the entire sibling set, which is calculators and graders rather than availability lookups.

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?

Gives explicit usage contexts: 'Use when someone wants to talk to Rahul, get help with their marketing or RevOps, or book a consultation.' Clear triggering conditions, though it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use condition (none of the siblings overlap, so this is a minor gap).

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