calmesh_get_poll_overlap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'read' scope is required, which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only, no modifications) or behavior on missing polls, leaving some ambiguity. The scope requirement adds useful context but is not fully comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly. It explains the purpose, the input (poll), the output type (time slots), and a key prerequisite (read scope). It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't mention potential edge cases like empty polls or error handling, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 100% with a clear 'Poll slug' description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'slug' parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so no extra credit is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get overlapping availability slots for a poll.' It further explains the value ('Shows which time slots work for the most participants'), which distinguishes it from other poll-related tools like calmesh_create_poll or calmesh_decide_poll. The verb 'get' and resource 'poll' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: analyzing poll results to find the most popular time slots. It clearly indicates this is for retrieving poll overlap data, which is distinct from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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