calendar_free_busy

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: pagination is used, unsupported personal scheduling endpoints are excluded, and any partial/failed/unknown source prevents a common free-time result. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and sets clear expectations for failure modes.

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 two compact sentences with no redundant wording. It packs the core behavior, constraints, and failure semantics without wasting space.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool produces (free/busy) and its main constraints. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact output shape, but the core context needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 description clarifies that sources must be explicit, accessible account/calendar selections, directly supporting the sources parameter. Start and end are self-explanatory as a time range and their format is enforced by the schema pattern, though the description does not elaborate on edge cases like inclusivity or timezone resolution.

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 tool derives free/busy exclusively from explicitly selected calendar sources, using a paginated calendarView. It also explicitly rules out personal getSchedule/findMeetingTimes, which distinguishes it from sibling scheduling tools.

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 conveys when to use this tool: only when free/busy should come from explicitly selected accessible calendar sources. It also cautions that unsupported scheduling APIs should not be expected, though it does not explicitly compare against siblings like calendar_find_availability.

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