calendar_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral trait: availability is derived from events not marked 'free', meaning free events are not counted as busy. However, it does not describe return format, timezone handling, or edge cases like overlapping events, which would provide fuller 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and core logic. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, date range capability, and the underlying rule for free/busy. Minor gaps include absence of return value details and explicit handling of annotations, but the tool's simplicity keeps this acceptable.

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%, with each parameter (account, date_end, date_start) already described in the schema. The description mentions date range, which aligns with date_start/date_end, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('free/busy status') with scope ('for a date or date range'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar_search and calendar_get. It also adds a key nuance about how availability is derived ('from events not marked free').

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need free/busy information rather than event details. It provides clear context (checking availability) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name a preferred sibling for other use cases.

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