libcal_suggest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ranking behavior, same-day priority, numbered option output, and the recommended-option explanation. It does not detail return format or error/no-result behavior, but for a non-destructive suggestion tool the disclosed workflow is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives a structured, actionable workflow. There is minor redundancy between the opening 'Use BEFORE booking...' and step 1, but the numbered format and categories list keep it scannable and useful.

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 tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus detailed input schema covers invocation behavior, defaults, categories, and the follow-up booking step. It does not cover the exact-date+time path to libcal_check_availability or what to do when no options are found, so it is not fully complete.

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. The description adds practical meaning beyond the schema by listing exact category values (davis-cubes, davis-study-rooms, davis-computers), clarifying duration semantics with 'use 180 for max/LibCal limit', and explaining preferred_date/preferred_start_time as ranking boosts.

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 action ('Find ranked booking options') on a specific resource with a clear behavioral qualifier ('same-day priority'). It also positions the tool in the booking workflow relative to libcal_book, so an agent can distinguish when this tool is intended.

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 explicitly says to use this tool BEFORE booking when the user has not given an exact date+time, provides a required numbered workflow, and names the condition for calling libcal_book instead. It also instructs the agent never to auto-book far-future dates when sooner options exist.

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