Get User Availability Schedule

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not the primary source there. It does add the required OAuth scope (availability:read), which is genuinely useful auth context beyond the structured fields, but says nothing about return format or behavior.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the scope requirement. Efficient, though the telegraphic style sacrifices some clarity for brevity.

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 single-resource read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally sufficient. It omits any description of what the schedule object contains, though with no output schema this is a minor gap for a straightforward get.

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 both parameters, including the account-vs-organization distinction. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 a verb (Get) and resource (User Availability Schedule), matching the title and name almost verbatim. It gives no differentiation from the close sibling list_availability_schedules, so an agent must infer whether this fetches one schedule or many. Adequate but not distinctive.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like list_availability_schedules, and no preconditions. The only clue that it operates on a single schedule comes from the required schedule_uuid in the schema, not the description.

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