findMutualAvailability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returned slots are scored 0–1 by suitability based on working hours, buffer fit, and daily meeting load. It also states that start/end values can be passed into createProposal. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior, though it could mention whether the tool is read-only (it appears to be, but not explicitly stated).

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 focused paragraph that covers purpose, prerequisites, and output usage. Every sentence provides value, and the information is well-organized. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for prerequisites), but it is appropriately concise for the complexity of the tool.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description partially explains the return format (scored slots with start/end values) but does not detail all fields in the response. This could hinder an agent's understanding of the full output. For a tool with no output schema, a more complete description of the return structure would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond the schema: it explains that participantIds must be UUIDs from createParticipant, defines the scope of durationMinutes and date range, and notes that the timezone defaults to the first participant's timezone. This enhances the agent's understanding of how to use the parameters correctly.

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 explicitly states that the tool finds meeting times for all participants simultaneously and positions itself as the primary scheduling intelligence tool. It also distinguishes itself by noting that the returned slots can be passed directly into createProposal, which differentiates it from sibling tools like getParticipantAvailability.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('when you need to find meeting times that work for all participants') and lists prerequisites (participants must be registered via createParticipant, UUIDs required). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its primary use case.

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