Free/Busy Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful return semantics: time slots are labeled free, busy, tentative, out of office, or working elsewhere. It does not discuss auth requirements, but openWorldHint covers that context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return content. No filler; every phrase carries useful information for an agent.

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 read-only, idempotent query tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the input shape and return statuses, though it could still note permission or auth expectations, which annotations only partially imply.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including defaults and formats. The description adds only a general mention of email addresses and the time window, not syntax or behavior beyond the schema.

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 ('Check') and resource ('people's availability / free-busy status') with a clear time-window scope. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools such as ms_calendar, but the free-busy focus is clear enough to separate it from general calendar tools.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent can infer it is for availability checks, but there is no explicit routing advice versus ms_calendar or other scheduling-related siblings.

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