feishu_calendar_freebusy

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 does well by specifying the batch query capability (1-10 users) and that it queries primary calendars. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first establishes identity and purpose, second specifies when to use, third details capabilities and practical application. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well but has gaps. It covers the 'what' and 'when' effectively but lacks details about authentication, error handling, rate limits, and output format. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for robust agent operation without additional context.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the 75% schema coverage. While the schema documents the parameters technically, the description clarifies that 'user_ids' are for '批量查询 1-10 个用户' (batch query 1-10 users) and that the tool is specifically for '安排会议时间' (scheduling meeting times). This provides practical usage context that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('查询忙闲', '查看忙闲状态') and resources ('飞书日历', '用户的主日历忙闲信息'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calendarListEvents or feishu_calendar_event by focusing specifically on free/busy status queries rather than event details or calendar listings.

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 guidelines: '当用户要求查询某时间段内某人是否空闲、查看忙闲状态时使用' (when users request checking availability within a time period). It also specifies the scope ('支持批量查询 1-10 个用户的主日历忙闲信息') and purpose ('用于安排会议时间'), giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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