find_free_slots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that results respect a minimum duration and an optional workday boundary, which goes beyond the bare tool name. However, it does not state what 'free' means (implicitly excluding existing events), whether date bounds are inclusive, or what the return shape is — significant gaps without 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?

One front-loaded sentence in Spanish that states the main action first, then the two constraints. No filler or redundancy — every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It explains the core purpose but omits the return value shape — an agent cannot tell whether it receives time ranges, counts, or suggestions — and never situates the tool within the calendar workflow. The rich schema covers parameter formats, but not the behavioral and contextual gaps.

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% — all five parameters (startDate, endDate, durationMinutes, startHour, endHour) are documented with format examples and defaults. The description's references to duration and workday hours merely mirror schema content and add no new meaning. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Busca ventanas de tiempo libres disponibles en el calendario') with two clear constraints — required duration and optional workday hours. This is semantically distinct from siblings like reschedule_event, delete_or_cancel_event, list_events, and create_event. However, it does not explicitly contrast with detect_conflicts, the closest sibling, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. With close siblings like detect_conflicts and list_events, an agent receives no signal about which tool answers availability questions. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional use cases are stated.

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