dingtalk_calendar_busy_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. The verb '查询' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., whether both busy and free slots are returned), time format requirements, or any permissions needed. This is a minimal reliance on the verb rather than explicit disclosure.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is so minimal that it skips valuable context, which reduces the score slightly from a perfect 5. It is appropriately size-efficient for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry full context. It does not explain the meaning of '忙闲时间段' (busy/free time slots), output structure, time parameter format, or any usage constraints. For a tool that queries multiple users' availability, this is a significant gap.

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 all three parameters have descriptions in the schema, providing baseline meaning. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, and the schema descriptions themselves are basic (e.g., '查询起始时间' for start_time) without format details. Thus, baseline 3 is 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 uses the specific verb '查询' (query) and identifies the resource as '一组用户的忙闲时间段' (busy/free time slots for a group of users), which clearly indicates a query operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling calendar tools like dingtalk_calendar_event_list or dingtalk_calendar_event_suggest, which may also involve calendar availability.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when you need to check availability across multiple users versus listing individual events. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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