check_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, or any required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The vague term 'Check' implies non-destructive operation but is insufficient.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core functionality and two modes. No unnecessary information is present, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 required) and absence of parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required fields, default values, or usage constraints. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage that to compensate for lack of input guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to parameters. It only explains the 'mode' parameter values, leaving the other five parameters (emails, start_iso, end_iso, account_id, duration_minutes) undescribed. This is insufficient for an agent to understand correct usage.

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 purpose: checking calendar availability, with two explicit modes 'free_busy' and 'suggest'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_event' and 'list_events' by focusing on availability rather than 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on when to use each mode. However, the distinct purpose implies usage context, so it is adequate but lacks explicit direction.

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