calendar_free_time

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'Find free time slots' and 'analyzes calendar' implicitly signal a non-mutating read operation, which is meaningful, but it never states read-only behavior, permission requirements, or how working-hour defaults affect results beyond what the schema says.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence is close to a restatement of the first but adds the 'available time windows' framing, keeping waste minimal.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose but omits how results are shaped or constrained (e.g., whether defaults 9-17 bound the output, granularity of slots). Just enough to call it, not enough to predict its behavior.

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 schema already documents date, start_hour, end_hour, and calendar_name; baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how the working-hours range scopes the returned slots or how calendar_name filters analysis.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (free time slots) with a scope constraint (a specific date), and 'Analyzes calendar to find available time windows' clarifies the mechanism. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like calendar_date or calendar_upcoming, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use this when you want availability rather than a list of events), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no named alternative among the many calendar siblings. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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