find_availability

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it uses Graph getSchedule and covers 'given people for a time window,' providing some scope context. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or how timezone and interval settings affect 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 one short sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the core function and the underlying API in parentheses. This is an example of efficient, front-loaded writing.

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?

The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description doesn't need to explain returns or risk. However, it omits usage guidance and parameter details for time_zone and interval_minutes, which are important for correct invocation. Given the tool's relative simplicity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 mentions 'given people' which maps to emails, and 'time window' which maps to start and end, but provides no explanation for time_zone or interval_minutes, which have defaults but unclear semantics. The description thus only partially covers parameter meaning.

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 the tool provides free/busy information for specified people within a time window, referencing Graph getSchedule. This clearly identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from event management siblings like list_events or create_event. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, making it slightly less direct.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_events or search_events. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred. There is no mention of scenarios like pre-meeting scheduling checks or exclusions.

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