find_available_slot

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: a one-hour gap between posts, preferred posting hours of 8am–10pm, a cap of 10 slots, the default timezone pitfall, the UTC instant returned for scheduled_at, and the ranking behavior of best_engagement with star ratings and reasons.

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 purpose and packs important constraints into a single dense paragraph. It is efficient, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideally structured definition.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing operational context: return format, timezone risk, strategy requirements, and scoping behavior. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly without further inference.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description still adds meaning by explaining cross-parameter dependencies (best_engagement requires account_ids) and the differing default counts between strategies, which the schema only partially conveys.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Find available time slots for posting." It immediately distinguishes itself from post-creation siblings like create_post and scheduling tools by focusing on slot discovery, and it names the two strategies so an agent can tell what kind of result to expect.

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 gives clear usage conditions: pass timezone explicitly, use workspace_id to scope collision avoidance, and use best_engagement only with account_ids. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is otherwise clear.

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