calmesh_check_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns free slots and requires 'read' scope, which adds some transparency. However, it does not explain how slots are determined (e.g., whether they account for existing events, working hours, or past times), nor does it describe error behavior or rate limits. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, return value, and a requirement. It is front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value without any redundant wording. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and mentions the read scope, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, it lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools and does not address edge cases or return structure in detail, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a detailed description (date, slug, duration, timezone). The description text adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Check available time slots on a calendar for a given date' and 'Returns free slots where meetings can be scheduled.' This is specific and uses a clear verb+resource structure. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool calmesh_get_slots, which likely has a similar purpose, preventing a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calmesh_get_slots or calmesh_find_conflicts. It only mentions the 'read' scope prerequisite, which is not usage context. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision-making information.

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