get_user_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context: the tool operates in UTC+8 and inputs must be local time. However, it never states permissions/read-only nature explicitly, whether results are cached or real-time, or anything about the shape or pagination of the returned occupancy 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?

Front-loads the '[primary choice]' marker, follows with purpose, then the routing rule, then a compact parameter block. The 'more efficient and intuitive' clause is mild filler but the overall structure is tight and scannable.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, timezone, formats, and defaults adequately. The main gap is that the structure of the returned occupancy (per time slot) is only obliquely implied by availability_view_interval rather than described.

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 largely does: it documents all three parameters with ISO 8601 format, the 'must be local time' constraint, and the default of 30 minutes for availability_view_interval. Only the interaction between interval and the returned slots is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (check whether the current user is free in a given time range) and explicitly positions itself against the sibling list_calendar_events. An agent can distinguish it from the raw event-listing tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasing ('am I free?', 'is there a conflict?', 'check my busy/free') and a hard routing rule: prefer this over list_calendar_events. It even names the reason (more efficient, more intuitive occupancy view). This is as prescriptive as usage guidance gets.

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