calendar_get_availability

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the computation is local from calendar_list_events-equivalent data and that Calendar.app has no native free/busy API. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation and constraints, the second provides important implementation context. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers purpose and computation method, it lacks details on the output format (expected return value for free/busy gaps) and parameter format examples. With no output schema and three required params, the description could be more complete.

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 description mentions 'bounded date range (max 366 days)' for startDate and endDate, adding meaning beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions for those parameters. However, it does not specify date format or the structure of the calendars array objects, and schema coverage is only 33%.

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 verb 'compute', the resource 'free/busy gaps across one or more calendars', and the constraint 'bounded date range (max 366 days)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is locally computed and not a native free/busy API, which is unique among calendar tools.

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 on when to use (need free/busy gaps) and a caution that it is locally computed, not native. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the limitation helps avoid misuse.

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