Daily working-hours overlap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral trait that computation uses a real date so DST changes are reflected. However, it does not mention what happens when no overlap exists, whether holidays are considered, or the output format, leaving notable gaps.

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 with no filler. The core definition is front-loaded, and the DST nuance is a meaningful addition. 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?

The core concept is clear and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotation coverage. The description does not explicitly state the return shape or edge-case behavior for impossible overlaps, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameters are already well documented with names, defaults, and examples. The description adds only the interpretation that 'listed place' corresponds to the zones parameter. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 defines what is computed: the daily window when every listed place is within working hours. It is specific about the resource and scope, and the DST qualifier adds precision. It lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with sibling time tools, so it barely misses a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_meeting_slots, free_busy, or business_days. The agent must infer from the description that this is for working-hours overlap across zones. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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