free_slots

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses that slots are computed from events exclusively, restricted to working days and working hours (9h-18h default), in Europe/Paris local time. It does not address holiday handling or whether bounds are inclusive, leaving a small gap.

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?

Purpose and the key constraint (events only) are front-loaded, and the run-on sentence packs several constraints without filler. It is dense but slightly hard to parse as a single block rather than separated clauses.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined behavior and parameter coverage make this sufficient to invoke correctly, with only edge-case semantics (boundaries, holidays) unstated.

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 must define all five parameters, and it does: start/end format and timezone, work_start/work_end as 'HH:MM' with the 9h-18h default, and min_minutes as the minimum slot duration. Minor gaps remain (inclusivity of bounds, min_minutes unit/default) but compensation is strong.

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/resource: free slots between `start` and `end`, and immediately delimits the computation source ('calculés à partir des événements uniquement'), which separates it from task-oriented siblings like `tasks` or `add_task`. An agent knows exactly what it produces without opening the 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?

The 'events only, tasks do not block time' clause is useful context for when this is the right tool versus task-related ones, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. `agenda`). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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