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

The description adds transparency beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating that individual calendars are never exposed and explaining the scoring logic (buffer, soonness). This is valuable context for the agent's decision-making.

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 paragraph that efficiently communicates key points without excessive length. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds details, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides good behavioral context (non-exposure, auth) and some output details, but lacks parameter guidance and a structured return format description. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 40%, and the description does not add meaning to parameters like 'tz', 'durationMin', or 'meetingId'. It mentions 'per-30-min-slot' (output) but not input parameters. For 5 parameters, this is insufficient compensation.

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 aggregates availability for an existing meeting, with specific output details (per-30-min slots, ranked slots, allFree). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_manual_availability' by focusing on existing meetings and aggregated results.

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 notes that no authentication is needed and the meeting ID is the capability, which is a security guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_common_slots' or 'get_manual_availability', nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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