List user availability schedule

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP GET endpoint, calendars.readonly scope, and pagination support, which enriches the behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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 short but redundant: it opens with 'List user availability schedule' and then restates 'Retrieve user availability schedules' in the next sentence. The endpoint and scope information is useful, but the repetition could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 list operation, the description covers the essential aspects: endpoint, scopes, filters, and pagination. Required parameters and default limits are visible in the schema, and the absence of an output schema is acceptable since the return type is implied to be a list of schedules. The description is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, and the description's mention of filters by location, calendar, and user mirrors the schema descriptions without adding new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('List'/'Retrieve') and resource ('user availability schedules') and enumerates filters by location, calendar, and user. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling calendars_getschedulebyid, but the plural 'schedules' and 'search' endpoint make the list-oriented purpose clear.

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 implies usage through the filter list and pagination support, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent can infer this is the search/list availability tool, but there is no direct guidance on sibling selection.

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