Find B2match meeting slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Does not book anything,' a small additive clarification, but discloses nothing about cost, rate limits, or the semantics of the long-term-networking flag.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the single most important non-behavioral caveat. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations gap around safety, the definition is only partially complete. It should clarify the format/units expected for 'day' and 'duration' and what the returned slots look like, none of which is recoverable from structured data.

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 only 20% (only 'event' is documented), so the description must carry the rest and does not. It vaguely gestures at participant_ids via 'selected participants' but says nothing about day, duration, or is_long_term_networking, leaving three parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Read common free meeting slots') plus the scope ('for the viewer and selected participants'), which is enough to distinguish it from single-party siblings like my_availability. It never names an alternative sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Does not book anything' implicitly tells the agent this is a pre-booking discovery step rather than a scheduling action, which is useful. However, no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g., my_availability vs. meeting_recommendations) and no condition is given for when this should be preferred.

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