get_overlap_hours

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 the tool uses a 'production overlap endpoint' (implying a network call) and that relative dates are not handled directly (delegated to answer_time_question). However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second provides essential routing guidance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not mention the output format, error cases, or how countryCodes/date affect the result. The routing rule adds some context, but the lack of return-value specification is a significant gap for a tool that computes overlap hours.

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 50%, and all parameters have descriptions in the schema (date, locations, _endUserId, countryCodes). The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves, only the date-related routing rule. Since coverage is moderate, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return shared business-hours overlap across multiple locations' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool answer_time_question by explicitly noting that relative-date inputs should be routed elsewhere, making the purpose 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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'For relative-date inputs... route to answer_time_question.' This names the alternative tool and the condition for using it, which is exactly the kind of guidance needed for correct tool selection.

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