find_meeting_time

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for the extra behavioral disclosure that it is fail-closed and that availability_state/warnings must be checked before trusting slots. This is genuinely useful and not redundant, though it stops short of explaining what fail-closed actually looks like in the response.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the fail-closed caveat, then input aliases. Nothing is padded, though the trailing alias sentence is close to redundant with the schema and could be dropped.

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 carries some of the return-value burden by naming availability_state and warnings, and 100% schema coverage handles the ten parameters. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, but a reader still has no picture of the actual slot payload returned.

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 every parameter including the aliases and the deprecated slot_duration is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light signal that agents/start/end are the core inputs, and its alias sentence largely repeats what the schema already says.

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 slots when multiple agents are free') and scopes the data sources (Chronary calendars plus each agent's authorized human calendars). The multi-agent scope implicitly separates it from the single-target get_availability sibling, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 operating context: use it to find common free time across several agents, and 'always inspect availability_state and warnings before using slots'. It never states when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g. get_availability, create_proposal) to prefer instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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