get-people-availability

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that it returns availabilityView values and busy time slots, and by disclosing the privacy behavior around event details. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences deliver a specific purpose, the exact return format with enum meanings, and the key privacy limitation. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only availability tool with no output schema, the description gives enough return semantics through the availabilityView values and busy time slots. It also covers the critical edge case of hidden event details, making the tool's behavior predictable for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only general context such as 'time window' for start/end and 'colleagues' for emails, but does not meaningfully enrich parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving free/busy availability (getSchedule) for one or more colleagues' calendars over a time window. It also distinguishes itself from event-detail tools by noting that event details stay hidden unless the calendar is shared.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when checking colleagues' availability for a time window. It also conveys an implicit when-not-to-use condition by noting event details are hidden unless the calendar is shared, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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