signupgenius_get_signup_slots

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that participant names appear only when the endpoint publishes them and that each item reports the slot's 'hidenames' setting, which helps explain empty lists without implying access issues. It also explicitly states 'Requires NO auth', adding valuable behavior context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first covers what slots include, the second provides usage guidance and alternatives, and the third explains a subtle behavior (hidenames). There is no fluff 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (slot details, availability, hidenames) and how to handle conditional participant names. It also addresses edge cases about empty lists, making it complete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage, describing the parameter as a URL, slug, or numeric id with format details. The description repeats this ('given its URL, slug, or numeric id') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('SLOTS') and scope ('any public SignUpGenius sign-up'), including the data fields (dates, times, locations, spots taken/remaining). It also distinguishes from sibling report tools by explicitly saying to use this instead of signupgenius_report_* for slot availability.

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 explicit usage context: 'Requires NO auth and works for sheets the user did not create' and provides a direct alternative ('use this instead of signupgenius_report_* whenever you need slot availability'). This clearly tells when to use this tool over similar ones.

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