find_free_slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that slots are precomputed and includes handling of holidays, weekends, working hours, min notice, and margins, plus mention of an Italian 'label' in the output. It lacks explicit mention of edge cases like no available slots, but for a read-only tool, this is sufficiently 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 two sentences in Italian, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and the 'label' field, but does not describe the output structure, the meaning of parameters, or edge cases (e.g., no slots found). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% and the description does not mention any of the 7 parameters (work_start, work_end, max_slots, etc.). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, and it does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool finds free calendar slots, precomputed and ready for email proposals, and explicitly distinguishes it from list_events by noting it handles holidays, weekends, working hours, min notice, and margins. This is a specific verb+resource+scope with clear differentiation from its sibling.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this tool instead of deducing availability from list_events' and lists the preprocessing done, giving clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative. This is exactly what the rubric asks for.

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