calendar_freebusy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only status check and adds context about supporting multiple calendars and a time range. While it doesn't discuss edge cases or auth requirements, the behavior is straightforward and well disclosed for a safe operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant words or filler; it is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior sufficiently. It mentions the time range and multiple calendars, but does not describe the return format or handle edge cases. However, for a free/busy check, this is acceptable and complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds slight context about multiple calendars but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema states. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function: checking free/busy status for one or more Google Calendars within a time range. It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (free/busy status), and the scope is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling calendar tools like calendar_list_events or calendar_get_event, which handle event details.

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 implies usage for checking availability but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct comparisons or exclusion criteria, making the usage context inferable rather than clearly stated.

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