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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this while adding real value: the availability window (weekdays, Berlin time, from tomorrow on) and the fact that a booking must be completed through a separate tool by the person themselves. It stops short of describing what a returned slot looks like or whether results are truncated by the default limit, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with the availability window front-loaded and the booking handoff second. Every clause carries information: duration, timezone, weekday restriction, start boundary, and safety profile.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly and to know what to do with the result: the time reference, the timezone, and the next step in the booking flow. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'limit' is fully documented with bounds and its default of 12. The description adds no additional meaning about how limit interacts with slot density or truncation, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: 30-minute video call slots with a named person, weekdays, Berlin time, from tomorrow onward. An agent can distinguish it immediately from get_booking_link and the check_* siblings without opening any 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?

States the tool's role in the flow explicitly and routes the booking step elsewhere: 'To book, give the person the link from get_booking_link; they pick or confirm the time themselves.' That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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