cal_get_availability

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It mentions ISO 8601 format for dates, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior for invalid inputs, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with one clear sentence listing parameters, no duplicated information, and no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and input requirements.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should describe the return value, but it omits any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., list of time slots, availability statuses). For a read operation with no output schema, this is a significant gap that reduces completeness.

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 clarify parameters. It specifies that dateFrom and dateTo require ISO 8601 format and that timeZone is optional, providing meaning beyond plain names. Yet it does not define the exact role of timeZone (e.g., input interpretation or output formatting) or the precise meaning of dateFrom/dateTo.

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 gets available time slots for a specific event type within a date range, using strong verb 'Get' and specific resource 'available time slots'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cal_create_booking and cal_list_event_types by focusing on availability lookups.

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 lists required (eventTypeId, dateFrom, dateTo) and optional (timeZone) parameters, providing basic usage hints. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cal_get_booking or cal_list_schedules, and does not state prerequisites or limitations.

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