ghl_calendar_list_free_slots

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 31-day date range constraint, epoch milliseconds requirement, and endpoint details. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the most important warning, but contains redundancy (the title 'Get Free Slots' appears both as a header and in the sentence). Some lines (endpoint, scopes) could be moved to a separate field. Still reasonably structured.

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 description covers the core operation, constraints, and optional parameters. It lacks details about response format or pagination, which could be important for a listing tool. However, given the absence of an output schema, the description provides minimal but sufficient context for 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. However, the description adds critical clarification that startDate/endDate must be epoch milliseconds (not ISO strings) and reinforces the 31-day limit, which the schema notes but doesn't emphasize the unit format.

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 retrieves free slots for a calendar within a date range, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling calendar tools by focusing on free slots, and includes critical detail about epoch milliseconds format.

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 implies usage for checking availability within a date range with optional timezone/user filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_calendar_event_list or ghl_calendar_list_blocked_slots. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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