Get user availability schedule

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional disclosure burden is modest. It adds useful context by specifying the endpoint, required scope ('calendars.readonly'), and the type of data returned, but it does not describe edge cases, error behavior, or response format.

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 core description is short and front-loaded with the retrieval purpose. However, the opening phrase 'Get user availability schedule' duplicates the tool title before the real sentence begins, which is minor redundancy that prevents a perfect score.

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 simple, one-parameter get-by-id tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the identifier parameter, the endpoint, the required scope, and the kind of information returned. The rich annotations also cover safety and idempotency, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter and describes it as the unique identifier of the schedule. The description echoes this without adding new semantics such as format, examples, or constraints, so it remains at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('a specific schedule by its unique identifier'). It also lists the return contents (rules, timezone, associated calendars/users), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling list-style tools like calendars_getallschedules.

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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you have a schedule's unique identifier and need its detailed data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the id-based retrieval pattern is self-evident given the endpoint and sibling tools.

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