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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world read, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return shape (event types with duration, price, hosts, and hostTimezones for time-zone framing) and the edge case that handles from before a rename still resolve.

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 tight sentences: handle format first, then what is returned, then the next call. No filler, and the most load-bearing information (input format and return contents) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the response — and it does, covering the profile, event types, duration, price, hosts, and time zones. With one fully documented parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the handle format with its own URL example, so the description largely repeats it. It adds mild clarity by naming the first path segment explicitly, but not meaningfully beyond the structured field — the baseline 3 applies.

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 action and resource: resolves a handle and returns the person/team plus their bookable event types with duration, price, and hosts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_booking (a single reservation) or get_available_slots (time slots), and the entry-point role in the booking flow is explicit.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Next: call get_available_slots with one of the event type slugs.' That establishes the workflow context well, but it gives no when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions versus other lookup tools, so it stops short of the top score.

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