Query Freebusy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Check' implies a non-mutating read, and the output schema covers the return shape, but the description says nothing about permissions required, rate limits, or whether the query spans only the caller's accessible calendars.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the scope, and the constraints with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the essentials. The main omission is routing guidance against event-listing siblings, which a slightly longer description could resolve.

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%, so each parameter (time_min, time_max, calendar_ids with its 'primary' default) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'one or more calendars in a time range' without adding format or default details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: checking free/busy status for calendars within a time range. An agent can distinguish it from list_events or get_event because it returns availability rather than event data. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrasing 'check free/busy status' implies the use case (availability lookup) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not point to list_events/search_events as alternatives for retrieving actual event details. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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