get_freebusy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read operation retrieving availability for a period and multiple calendars, but it does not disclose the response format, limitations, or that it returns busy/free markers rather than event details. This is a minimal but acceptable level of transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and add the multi-calendar detail. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 full schema coverage and the simple nature of a free/busy query, the description provides the essential context. However, since there is no output schema, it could have described the return structure more explicitly, but the mention of free and occupied time slots is mostly sufficient.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or details beyond what the schema already offers, only loosely aligning 'specified period' with timeMin/timeMax and 'multiple calendars' with calendarIds.

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 explicitly states the function: retrieving free/busy information for a specified period. It also mentions the ability to check time slots where multiple calendars are occupied, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or search_events.

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 implies its use case (checking availability across calendars) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It could be improved by contrasting with list_events or search_events.

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