find_meeting_times

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful non-obvious behavior: attendee queries accept only pinyin names or full emails, the current user is injected as Organizer by default, and working-hours data comes from Exchange with a local-calendar fallback. It does not state whether the tool only reads calendars (no invites sent) or anything about result limits or errors.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the constraints follow. It is efficient, though it under-covers rather than over-explains.

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 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves most inputs undefined. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value discussion, but the input-side gaps are substantial.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only addresses attendee_queries format and partially respect_attendee_working_hours and include_self semantics. Window format, duration_minutes, interval_minutes, max_results, and lookback_days are entirely unexplained.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource — parsing attendees and finding shared free time — which is a distinct capability from siblings like read_calendar or save_meeting. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus read_calendar or send_meeting_invitation, and no prerequisites beyond the mention of which attendees are accepted. The default-organizer note hints at behavior but does not guide tool selection.

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