find-meeting-times

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is safe. It adds useful context about the computation being based on free/busy data and working hours, but it does not disclose edge behavior such as returning no suggestions or how candidate limits apply.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, scope, and data source with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes useful meaning.

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 moderately complex read-only tool with all parameters documented in the schema and no nested objects, the description gives enough about what the tool computes and for whom. It does not spell out the return shape because there is no output schema, but the result ('time slots') is readily inferable from the description and title.

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 itself fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reiterating the concept of attendees and meeting times, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Suggest'), a concrete resource (meeting time slots), and the data basis (free/busy data and working hours). It is clearly distinct from calendar-reading tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get-people-availability, which could plausibly be mistaken for an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should use this when it needs to propose workable meeting slots for a signed-in user and attendees. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives such as get-people-availability for raw availability retrieval.

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