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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by noting that slots reflect the live calendar, implying real-time data freshness. While it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe return format, the verb 'get' and the context strongly imply a non-mutating lookup, and the description is transparent enough for a simple read tool.

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 a single, well-crafted sentence that packs the essential information: purpose, team, time zone, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and that it provides live data. It doesn't detail the return structure, but the name and description imply a list of slots, and the siblings context (book-meeting) helps the agent infer its purpose. This is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides a comprehensive description of the 'date' parameter, including format and range (today to +60 days, IST). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond a generic 'for a given date', so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving available consultation slots with the Printing Labs team for a given date. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('meeting slots'), and mentions the team context, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'book-meeting' which handles booking.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Use before book-meeting', providing a clear directive on when to use this tool relative to its sibling. The context that 'slots reflect the live calendar' reinforces its role as a pre-booking check, making the usage guidance precise and actionable.

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