Find meeting times across time zones

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

Annotations only state readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds rich behavioral detail: windows inside everyone's working hours (with default 09:00-17:00 unless given), up to 14 days, skipping weekends and holidays, and fallback to the closest time. This goes well beyond the annotations and informs the agent of the algorithm's edge cases.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary use case immediately. Every phrase adds value: scope, working hours logic, day range, weekend/holiday skipping, and fallback. No redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format is covered. The description explains the core algorithm and parameter semantics sufficiently for correct invocation. Minor gaps like explicit timezone handling are implied by the tool's purpose but not stated; still, the combination of description, schema, and annotations is nearly 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 descriptions cover 50% (date and people formats). The description adds meaning for the people parameter (working hours can be specified) and the days parameter (up to 14 days), but doesn't clarify minutes or default behaviors beyond what the schema already provides. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 the purpose explicitly: 'Use for any meeting across time zones' and describes the resource (meeting slots) with specific behavior (windows inside working hours, up to 14 days). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like business_days, date_info, holidays, and world_time by focusing on scheduling rather than date/time facts.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use for any meeting across time zones.' It implies this is the go-to for scheduling across time zones, but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives. However, the scope is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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