signupgenius_list_slots

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: no auth required, works for unowned sheets, and includeParticipants costs one extra request per slot row. It could additionally mention pagination or error behavior, but the disclosure is strong for a read-only public listing tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: output fields, auth scope, comparison to alternatives, and a crisp usage recommendation. The most important signal, 'List every SLOT', is front-loaded, and 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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so by naming date, day, times, title, location, capacity, filled/available counts, and participant details. It also covers auth/ownership context and the performance implication of includeParticipants, making it complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, and each parameter is already fully documented including formats, defaults, and side effects. The description reinforces the url formats and the includeParticipants cost, but it does not materially add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every SLOT on a SignUpGenius sign-up' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling signupgenius_report_* tools by noting they are key-only and owner-scoped, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.

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 states when to use this tool: it requires NO auth and works for sheets the user did NOT create, which is exactly the case the Pro signupgenius_report_* tools cannot serve. It also positions the tool as the right choice for 'what is still open?', giving clear selection guidance.

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