find_free_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains maximal free blocks, buffer padding, busy-event semantics, all-day and transparent event handling, and DST-safe working hours. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated first and parameter semantics following. Every sentence adds useful information, though the long paragraph could be structured more scannably.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential scheduling semantics and return-block behavior. It still omits details for calendars and limit, and does not mention operational constraints such as auth or rate limits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains most parameters: start/end/tz, working_hours format, days, buffer_minutes, duration_minutes, include_all_day, and include_transparent. It leaves calendars and limit under-explained, so it is strong but not complete.

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 verb and resource: find free slots across calendars, with a clear scope of working hours and duration. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as find_conflicts or agenda, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use it to locate free time blocks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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