Find meeting slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose return content (UTC instant, local time per participant, fairness score) and ordering, but it leaves side-effect/read-only status implicit and does not mention behaviors like saved-contact resolution or free-tier truncation, although some of those appear in the schema descriptions.

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?

Two concise sentences lead with the core action and then describe the output shape and ordering. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and every sentence earns its place.

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, but the description usefully summarizes the return values, and the rich parameter schema covers the inputs thoroughly. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though explicit usage guidance and side-effect disclosure would make it fully self-sufficient without annotations.

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 already explains every parameter. The description adds context about output format and ranking but no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rank') and clear resource ('times when every participant is inside their own working hours'), and separates this tool from siblings like free_busy or conflicts by describing the fairness-ranked slot output. The title and description together leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 tool clearly exists for finding mutually workable meeting times across participants. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like free_busy, conflicts, or overlap, nor does it 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.