Get next queue slot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., that it returns the next available slot and is tied to scheduling), but does not disclose details like whether it respects existing schedule conflicts or how current time is determined. With annotations covering the main traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, directly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage trigger. There is no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. It could optionally mention what the return value represents (e.g., a timestamp), but the absence is minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, an agent can infer how to call it 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 100%: the timezone parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Get the organization's next available queue slot.' It also clarifies the intent ('finding the next optimal scheduling time') which distinguishes it from schedule management tools like create_schedule or list_schedules. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 when to use it: 'Use this when the user asks when the next available scheduling slot is.' This provides clear context. It does not mention alternatives, but no direct sibling exists for this operation, so the omission is acceptable. No exclusions or when-not-to-use is given, but the explicit trigger is sufficient.

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