google_calendar_find_free_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'available time slots' but doesn't disclose how availability is determined (e.g., considering event busy status, working hours, or permissions). No information on rate limits, authentication needs, or output format is included, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with calendar data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to conciseness best practices.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters that likely involves complex calendar logic. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like how free time is calculated, what happens with multiple calendars, or the return format. For a tool of this complexity, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's details, such as explaining how 'calendarIds' interact with availability or what constitutes a 'slot'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('find') and resource ('available time slots between events'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_events' by focusing on free time rather than events themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other calendar tools beyond the general concept.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for scheduling or checking availability, there's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other tools like 'get_events' for overlapping functionality. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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