Read Free/Busy Schedule

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond that: subjects appear conditionally based on sharing level, otherwise subject is null but busy intervals remain. It also documents the exact failure mode of get_calendar_events, giving agents practical expectations without contradicting 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core function, the second paragraph explains an important edge case and sibling distinction, and the third gives a pointer to an alternative. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the core use case, the key edge case (unshared calendars), the conditional subject behavior, and points to the alternative tool for a different scenario. The output schema handles return value details, so the description does not need to enumerate them.

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 coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters, each with descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but it does indirectly mention the output field 'subject' and how sharing level affects it, which relates to the people parameter. Still, the schema carries the main burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read someone's schedule: their busy blocks, WITH MEETING SUBJECTS.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that get_calendar_events requires calendar sharing and that find_meeting_time is for group availability, making the tool's unique purpose clear.

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?

Provides direct usage guidance: 'Works for a colleague who has not shared their calendar folder' versus get_calendar_events which fails without sharing. It also gives a clear alternative for a different scenario: 'For "when can we all meet?" use find_meeting_time.' This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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