get_availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data scoping) beyond the alias preference, so added value is minimal.

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?

Two focused sentences with no waste. Parameter naming guidance is front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 8 parameters (including aliases), the description covers the core query pattern. It doesn't explain include_busy or the deprecated slot_duration, but the schema describes them. No output schema, but for a read-only check this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between start/end and start_time/end_time, stating which is preferred and why. It also notes the default duration (30m) though the schema already documents this.

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 checks when a single agent is free within a time range, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like find_meeting_time (which finds times across multiple agents or constraints) and get_availability_rules (which deals with rules, not lookup).

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 gives parameter usage guidance (prefer start/end over start_time/end_time) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_meeting_time or get_availability_rules. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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