meeting_overlap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait: computation is local (date-fns-tz / Intl, no external time APIs), implying offline/deterministic behavior. It omits behavior when no overlap exists, invalid-zone handling, DST edge cases, and the return format.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the implementation note kept as a brief trailing clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally describe the returned slot structure (times, timezones, per-participant fit). It covers inputs well enough but leaves the result shape and edge-case behavior unstated for a moderately complex nested-parameter tool.

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 five parameters (date, maxSlots, stepMinutes, participants, durationMinutes) are already documented with defaults and formats. The description only adds high-level framing ('N participants with local work hours'), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find overlapping meeting slots for N participants with local work hours on a date' clearly states what the tool computes. It is readily distinguishable from timezone-conversion siblings like convert_timezone, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as what_time_when or list_common_zones. The agent must infer that scheduling overlap is the intended scenario from the purpose statement alone.

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