find_free_slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says the operation is 'privacy-safe'. It does not explain what that means behaviorally, how tentative events are treated, whether buffers alter slots, or how conflicts are determined.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though arguably too sparse given the tool's complexity, which keeps it from a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Despite an output schema and a detailed input schema, the tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, and two sibling tools; the one-sentence description omits usage context, sibling differentiation, and behavioral caveats. Privacy-safe is asserted without elaboration.

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 0%, so the description needed to clarify parameter semantics, but it only loosely maps to workingHours and the search window. It adds no detail on start/end exclusivity, timezone handling, calendar selection, duration, or buffer behavior.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('free intervals across configured calendars during stated working hours'), giving a clear idea of the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like get_availability, so it loses the fifth point.

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 guidance on when to choose find_free_slots over get_availability or get_calendar_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Context such as how 'configured calendars' are set or why this is preferable to sibling tools is absent.

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