calendars_get_all_schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond a bare action; it does not disclose pagination behavior, the meaning of 'availability schedule', or the fact that locationId defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID (which is in the schema but not in the description). Since the annotations already cover the basic traits, the description's contribution is minimal and does not reveal any behavioral nuances.

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 a single short phrase with no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is almost too terse to be useful; while concise, it sacrifices clarity. Still, there is no unnecessary wording, so it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with five parameters and a required userId. It does not clarify whether it returns all schedules or a single one, nor does it provide any context about the response or usage. With a required parameter and sibling tools that suggest a more granular lookup, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding how and when to call this tool.

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%, with all five parameters having clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific insight, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description does not explain how parameters like userId or calendarId affect results, but the schema does, so the description is not required to repeat them.

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 verb ('List') and a resource ('user availability schedule'), but it is ambiguous whether it lists all schedules or a single schedule. The tool name says 'get_all_schedules' while the description uses the singular 'schedule', and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like calendars_get_schedule_by_id or calendars_get_calendars. This leaves the agent unclear about the exact scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over calendars_get_schedule_by_id or calendars_get_calendars, nor any context about filtering by user or calendar. The description simply states the action without any conditional usage advice.

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