Get Free Busy Schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('requires delegated Calendars.Read') and a regional support constraint ('Supported in 21V'), which is valuable. However, it does not describe the return format, behavior when no availability exists, or any error conditions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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: two sentences cover the core function and constraints, followed by concise Chinese intent examples. Every sentence adds value, and the key 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides a decent overview but fails to mention the response shape or edge cases such as empty requests. It is adequate for a read-only query tool but not fully complete without output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context by mentioning 'users, rooms, or distribution lists' which maps to the 'schedules' parameter, and 'time range' aligning with start/end, but it does not provide deeper semantics than the schema already offers.

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?

Description states 'Get free/busy availability for users, rooms, or distribution lists in a time range' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling calendar tools like list_events or list_view. It also provides Chinese intent phrases, reinforcing its purpose.

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 conveys clear use cases (checking availability for coworkers/rooms, finding common free time) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to prefer this over calendar_list_events. It implies usage context well but lacks explicit 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.