get_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool shows free/busy slots, but does not explain the nature of the output (e.g., blocked vs. free intervals), whether it considers only existing events or other availability factors, or if there are limitations like time range or permissions. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single introductory line followed by a brief 'Args' section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 (2 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is partially adequate. However, it misses context about how free/busy slots are determined (e.g., based on events from specified calendars) and what the output represents (time intervals with status?). With many sibling event tools, more context would help an agent decide when to use this tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It adds value by specifying the date format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and clarifying that the calendars parameter defaults to checking all calendars. This goes beyond the schema's type annotations. However, it could further explain acceptable values for calendar names (e.g., from get_calendars).

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: 'Show free/busy time slots for a specific date.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_events_in_range (which returns detailed events) or show_date (which may show a full schedule). The purpose is unambiguous.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools for fetching events, the lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to choose appropriately.

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