Get Free/Busy Times

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by stating 'read-only, safe for unsupervised use' and explains the output type ('availability view strings'), adding value beyond the structured 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 concise, starting with a emoji-summarized safety note, then a clear explanation, sibling comparison, and structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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?

With an output schema present, the description only needs to hint at returns, which it does ('Free/busy information with availability view strings'). It also lists possible exceptions. For a simple read tool with 5 params and rich annotations, it is fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear explanations for all five parameters in the Args section (e.g., 'ISO format' for start/end, 'default: 30' for time_interval), compensating fully for the bare schema.

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 'Get simplified free/busy times for attendees' with a specific verb ('get'), resource ('free/busy times'), and scope ('for attendees'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool calendar_check_availability, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 explicitly compares itself to calendar_check_availability, noting it 'focuses on availability view strings rather than detailed schedule information,' which guides selection. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios beyond that one comparison.

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