get_today_time_blocks

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description goes further by disclosing a meaningful API limitation: the response lacks the category link and the mapping is fetched separately from plannerSmartLists. This gives the agent useful expectations about data shape and an extra lookup without contradicting the readOnlyHint.

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, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the critical limitation placed immediately after. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema; both sentences earn their place.

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?

Given the simple surface area, rich schema parameter descriptions, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the important non-obvious behavior. The only notable completeness gap is the lack of explicit sibling comparison, but the core calling context is sufficiently conveyed.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds useful implementation context about the category-mapping lookup and normalized block title, but it does not substantively add to the parameter-level meaning 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?

The description clearly identifies the operation ('Get') and the resource ('today's time blocks'), so the purpose is immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, though 'time blocks' is reasonably distinct from tools like get_today_items or get_time_tracks.

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?

There is no direct guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_today_items, get_time_tracks, or create_time_block. The first sentence implies retrieval of today's blocks, but it never states exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling.

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