outlook_disponibilidade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'consulta' (queries), which implies a read operation, but it does not describe permissions, whether data is read-only, how results are returned, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a calendar-access tool.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the main purpose and gives a clarifying example, though it could be slightly more structured by mentioning the time window.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how 'dias' affects the query, or how this relates to other calendar tools. An agent cannot fully determine expected behavior or output from the description alone.

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 compensate. It adds some meaning for 'nome_usuario' by giving examples (name or email), but it says nothing about 'dias', leaving the integer's role, range, and default behavior unexplained.

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 action ('consulta a agenda') and the target resource (a managed user's calendar), and it gives an example of the user identifier. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like outlook_freebusy, outlook_agenda_hoje, or outlook_agenda_semana, leaving some ambiguity about whether this returns events or availability.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The phrase 'de um usuário gerenciado' implies it is for another person's calendar, but there is no explicit mention of when this is preferable to outlook_freebusy or the agenda tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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