query_freebusy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'returns information' by describing the formatted response, the primary-calendar fallback behavior, and the error condition for group_expansion_max exceeding its limit. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the core query behavior is well covered.

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 well structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every parameter explanation earns its place given the lack of schema-level descriptions, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions, the description provides a solid base: all parameters, defaults, limits, examples, and the return format are explained. The only noticeable gap is the absence of comparative guidance against related calendar tools and any mention of authentication prerequisites, but the operational details are largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. For all six parameters it explains meaning, optionality, defaults, constraints, and gives concrete RFC3339 examples for time_min and time_max. It also clarifies how calendar_ids relates to list_calendars, which adds real value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Returns free/busy information for a set of calendars.' This identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but 'free/busy' is semantically distinct from event-list tools like get_events, so an agent can generally tell it apart.

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 useful context on how to call the tool, such as falling back to the primary calendar when calendar_ids is omitted and referencing list_calendars as a source of calendar IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_events, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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