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

The annotations are all false/default and provide no behavioral safety signals, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the day-range semantics (inclusive endDate or days), the candidate-time generation rule (start + durationMinutes <= hourTo), return fields, and the confidentiality split between public URL and adminKey.

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 uses four dense, purposeful sentences and a concrete example. The purpose is front-loaded, the time-window logic is compressed into one clear sentence, and the example maps natural-language intent to actual parameter values without waste.

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 correctly enumerates the returned slug, public url, adminUrl, and adminKey, and explains their privacy roles. It covers the core algorithm and provides an example, but it does not mention that endDate wins over days when both are supplied; that precedence is only in the schema. Overall it is nearly complete for a 9-parameter 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real cross-parameter meaning by explaining how startDate, endDate/days, hourFrom, hourTo, startStepMinutes, and durationMinutes combine to generate candidate slots. It doesn't individually cover optional parameters like question, but the schema already documents those.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a sync.day availability poll and get its share link.' It clearly identifies the tool as a creation action and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting that the returned adminKey is needed for update_event and remove_participant.

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?

The description gives clear context for using the tool: create a poll, define the candidate day/time window, and share the public URL while keeping adminKey private. It references update_event and remove_participant as follow-up operations, but does not explicitly state when not to use create_event or when an alternative sibling would be preferred.

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