Get Blocked Slots

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the auth scope (calendars/events.readonly), which is useful, but it does not explain what a blocked slot is or what behavior the response will have. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, placing the operation and endpoint first followed by the scope. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is so minimal that it sacrifices explanatory value.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has six parameters with alternative identity fields, the description is too thin. It does not explain the semantics of blocked slots, clarify the userId/groupId/calendarId relationship, or describe the expected response, leaving important gaps 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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the schema contains a mild tension between the required fields and the 'either userId, groupId or calendarId' notes, which the description does not resolve.

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 the operation ('Get Blocked Slots') and the specific resource via the endpoint '/calendars/blocked-slots'. It is distinguishable from siblings like calendars_get_slots by the 'blocked-slots' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calendars_get_slots or calendars_get_calendar_events. It only provides the endpoint and required OAuth scope, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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