Find available slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are grouped by day, rendered in readable local times, and the search window is capped at 31 days. It still doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no slots exist.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and output grouping are front-loaded, and the constraints and follow-up action come second.

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?

For a read-only slot-lookup tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, limits, and the downstream book_meeting handoff. The main remaining gap is return behavior in edge cases such as an empty slot list.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, including the raw flag, ISO date formats, duration filter, and Olson time zone. The description largely restates the default window and local-time rendering already present in the schema, adding only the cross-tool note about reusing exact start_at/end_at.

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 ('Find bookable time slots on a scheduling link') plus the output shape ('grouped by day with readable local times'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_events, get_scheduling_link, and book_meeting without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the default window (next 7 days, max 31) so the agent knows behavior when no range is supplied, and explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use the exact start_at/end_at of a slot when calling book_meeting.' It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for listing events directly, but the workflow context is clear.

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