signupgenius_list_slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description rightly focuses on added context: requiring NO auth, working on sheets the user did NOT create, and returning participant entries with quantity consumed. It also surfaces the per-slot request cost in the includeParticipants parameter, which helps agents plan calls. No mention of rate limits, but the disclosures go beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the rich output, the second covers accepted inputs and the no-auth/public property, and the third gives the use case. Important differentiators are front-loaded, and every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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 read-only, public data-listing tool with three well-documented params and no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates all output fields, states the input formats, clarifies auth/ownership constraints, and distinguishes from sibling tools. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already fully documents url, onlyAvailable, and includeParticipants, including the request-cost tradeoff. The description restates the accepted input formats (URL, slug, numeric id) but adds little beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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'), then enumerates exactly what each slot contains, including date, times, title, location, capacity, availability counts, and participant details. It also differentiates itself from the owner-scoped Pro signupgenius_report_* tools by stating it works without auth and on sign-ups the user did not create.

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: for public sign-ups the user did not create, and specifically for answering 'what is still open?'. It also names the alternatives it is not, the Pro report tools, and explains their limitation (key-only AND owner-scoped), giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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