Search Available Times

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it searches within given time ranges but does not describe what the output contains (e.g., the format of available time slots) or any constraints like maximum time range duration. Since annotations cover safety, a moderate score reflects minimal additional behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the action and key targets. Slight improvement could be made by separating the purpose from non-essential details, but overall it is concise and structured well.

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 a 100% schema coverage, detailed parameter descriptions, and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is complex due to multiple parameter types and combinations, but the schema and annotations cover the essentials. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though it could benefit from noting that both attendees and facilities can be specified simultaneously, which the schema implies but the description does not highlight.

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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., attendees identified by type and id/code, timeRanges in RFC 3339 format). The description adds minimal nuance beyond the schema, such as the logical operator for facilities, but does not explain the relationship between attendees and facilities (e.g., whether both must be free simultaneously). Thus, it provides adequate but not extensive semantic enhancement.

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 searches for available time slots for specified attendees or facilities within given time ranges in Garoon. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `garoon-get-schedule-events` (which retrieves events) and `garoon-get-facilities` (which lists facilities), making its unique purpose evident.

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 for checking availability before scheduling, with clear required parameters (timeRanges, timeInterval). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other scheduling operations, such as `garoon-create-schedule-event` which would be used after finding availability.

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