find_slots

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it uses the freebusy API, checks both user and invitee calendars, and returns pre-processed available windows instead of raw busy blocks. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 very concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose and key behavioral aspects. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, output schema exists), the description adequately covers its function, input requirements (implicitly), and output nature ('agent-ready windows'). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

The description does not explain any parameter details despite 0% schema description coverage. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, there is no guidance on format, constraints, or relationships. The description should have compensated for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('time slots'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_event' and 'view_schedule' by focusing on availability checking using the freebusy API.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it checks availability for the user and all invitees in one call, which suggests when to use it (e.g., for scheduling). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'view_schedule'.

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