availability_get

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: timed events block the day, all-day events are ambiguous context, overlapping meetings merge before gap computation, and default working hours are 09:00–17:00 local. This materially helps an agent interpret results.

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, with each sentence adding behavioral or parameter meaning. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers important edge cases: all-day events, overlap merging, timezone handling, and working-hour defaults. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies timezone as an IANA name and links days to the next-few-days horizon, but it never explicitly defines min_minutes as the minimum free-gap duration, leaving one parameter under-specified.

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: 'Find free gaps in the synced Google Calendar.' It clearly differentiates availability lookup from siblings like agenda_get or calendar_event_propose by focusing on gap detection rather than event listing or proposal.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: finding open time slots in a synced calendar. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the listed siblings.

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