ghl_get_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. It implies a read-only lookup ('Get available...'), but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any behavioral nuances such as timezone handling, buffer times, or whether blocked slots are excluded. It is accurate but lacks additional context that would be useful for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 two concise sentences, immediately front-loaded with the core action. No redundant words or filler. Every part adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only query tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and usage context. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but the action is straightforward and an agent can reasonably infer that it returns a list of available slots. Slightly more detail would be beneficial, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by mentioning 'date range' (matching startDate/endDate) and 'for a calendar' (matching calendarId), but these are already implicit in the schema. It does not provide new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Get available appointment slots for a calendar within a date range.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'Use this before booking to find open times' further clarifies its role. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_get_calendar_events or ghl_create_appointment.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this before booking to find open times.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool relative to the booking workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear enough.

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