calendars_get_schedule_by_id

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as potential return formats, errors, or limitations. It merely restates the purpose without enriching beyond annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks necessary context. It does not specify what 'user availability schedule' entails, what the return value looks like, or any operational details, leaving an agent partially informed for a read operation without an output schema.

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% as the parameter 'id' has a clear description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given that the schema fully documents the single parameter.

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 'Get user availability schedule' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for a schedule. It is distinct enough from generic tools but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling calendar tools like calendars_get_calendar or calendars_get_slots, so it lacks sibling disambiguation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to other calendar tools, leaving an agent without context for selection among many similar siblings.

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