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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains shop-hour defaults, time-off and worker-hour exclusions, travel buffers, return behavior when no worker is specified, and that nothing is booked. It stops short of covering permissions, rate limits, or explicit read-only semantics beyond the 'nothing is booked' statement.

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 dense but efficient, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then layers on the scheduling constraints and worker-selection rules.

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 the complexity of a 9-parameter scheduling search with no annotations, the description covers the important behavioral rules and parameter combinations. Return details can rely on the existing output schema.

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 only 44%, so the description meaningfully compensates by explaining person_ids, crew_id, together, and the visit duration concept. The remaining schema-described parameters are covered by the schema itself, though shop_id is only implicitly explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find open times for a visit of a given length.' It also clarifies that nothing is booked and points to visits.create, which separates it from booking tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as schedule_openSlots.

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 gives clear guidance on using person_ids, crew_id, and together, including the default all-free behavior and the any-free alternative. It also notes the field-worker restriction and that booking requires a separate visits.create call, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to other schedule/search alternatives.

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