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 real behavioral context beyond that: the schedule features it honors, and crucially that unsupported schedule rules surface as errors rather than silently degrading, which tells the agent how to react to failures.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supported capabilities and error behavior. Four short lines with little waste, though the feature list is somewhat dense and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained. Combined with annotations, the description covers scope, supported rules, and failure behavior; only pagination/result-volume nuance is left implicit.

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 and the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's references to 'explicit numeric start times' and 'booking-window limits' loosely map to the booking-window parameter but add no format or boundary detail beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (available slots) along with the scope constraint (public, single-resource SuperSaaS schedule). An agent immediately knows this is an availability-read tool and the kind of schedule it targets.

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?

There are no sibling tools to disambiguate against, and the description implies its use case (find bookable slots in a public schedule) rather than stating when to reach for it or when not to. The mention of booking-window limits hints at a precondition but is not framed as guidance.

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