find_common_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, input requirements, and operational behavior. It only lists parameters and a terse summary, without stating that it reads a poll, what happens with invalid URLs, or any mutation/read-only guarantees.

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 compact: a one-line summary followed by a bullet-style Args list with no filler. Each parameter line adds distinct information, and the structure is scannable for an agent.

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?

The parameter semantics are well covered and an output schema exists, so the agent can understand the return shape. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral disclosure (e.g., that this reads a third-party poll, or how failures are handled) leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with five parameters and no annotations.

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%, but the Args block explains all five parameters with meaningful semantics: URL is the when2meet poll, timezone is IANA for slot labels, participant_names is an optional subset, min_participants controls the threshold, and only_marked_participants excludes unmarked users. This goes well beyond the raw 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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair ('Find times when participants overlap') and identifies the when2meet poll context. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compute_availability_from_busy_times, which could also produce availability overlaps.

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 is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the listed siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only implicit signal is the 'when2meet poll URL' parameter, which suggests the input context but does not say when this is the right tool.

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