Find Meeting Slots

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral detail: slots are computed from actual busy blocks (absolute times) rather than the merged free/busy string, which is shifted by the mailbox time zone and would cause double-booking. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent critical information about correctness.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding a crucial caveat. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 9-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key purpose, the critical timezone pitfall, and a clear integration path to create_event. It provides the essential behavioral context an agent would need to use the tool correctly.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about working hours and the output feeding into create_event, but does not detail individual parameter semantics beyond that. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 purpose: finding concrete meeting slots where all attendees are free during working hours. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_user_availability by emphasizing 'everyone is free' and by suggesting a direct follow-up to create_event.

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: use this tool to find common free slots, and then feed the result into create_event. It also warns about the timezone-shifted merged free/busy string, implying this tool is the accurate choice. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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