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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the team-wide calendar scope and mode behavior, but does not add richer behavioral context such as return format, permissions, or rate limits.

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 sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose followed directly by the mode semantics. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

Covers the core purpose, scope, and mode behavior for a simple read-only tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema. It is nearly complete, though naming nearby availability alternatives would make selection safer.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description usefully expands the mode enum beyond the schema's terse 'round-robin'/'collective' labels: 'any' means at least one member free, 'all' means everyone must be free. It does not add details for from/to, but the schema already documents them.

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 and resource: finding available slots across all team calendars. The team-calendar scope helps distinguish it from individual availability tools, but it does not explicitly name or rule out sibling tools like neuron_get_availability or neuron_get_available_slots.

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?

Explains the meaning and selection between mode='any' and mode='all', which gives useful invocation guidance for that parameter. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus the closely named availability siblings.

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