check_interviewers_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses async nature, immediate return of poll_id, result expiration after 1 hour, and two retrieval methods. It also explains slot data structure and the behavior for panel (all must be free) vs one_on_one (subset). It does not mention authentication or permissions, but overall provides good 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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then async details, result retrieval, slot semantics. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains result format (slots with interviewer_ids) and differences between panel and one_on_one. It covers async, expiration, and retrieval methods. With 7 fully-described parameters, the description adds necessary behavioral context, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds significant value beyond schema: it explains the difference between panel and one_on_one, the meaning of interviewer_ids in results, and how to use the tool in context (e.g., picking one ID for one_on_one when creating an interview). It enriches parameter understanding.

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 it computes free interview slots across calendars, specifies async behavior, and distinguishes between panel and one_on_one kinds. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to compute free slots) and explicitly names alternatives for retrieving results (get_interviewers_availability_result or webhook). It explains the panel vs one_on_one distinction, guiding choice. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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