Get my B2match availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important behavioral detail about what is returned by default (merged free ranges per day) versus the full grid with detail=true. It could say more about authentication/event-scoping requirements, but the 'logged-in viewer' framing covers the essentials.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by mode behavior and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its 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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains what the tool returns in each mode (merged free ranges per day vs. full timeslot grid). For a read-only tool with two fully documented parameters and complete annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both 'event' and 'detail'. The description restates the effect of detail=true but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource ('Fetch the logged-in viewer's own meeting availability') with the scope of self clearly stated. It is distinguishable from siblings like find_meeting_slots without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool ('Use find_meeting_slots for slots shared with specific participants') and gives the condition that selects it. It also explains the default mode vs. the detail=true mode, leaving no routing ambiguity.

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