ghl_calendar_schedule_list

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds behavioral context: it uses a search endpoint (GET /calendars/schedules/search), OAuth scopes (calendars.readonly), and supports pagination. These details go beyond the annotations' metadata.

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 short and to the point, with a clear first sentence followed by additional details. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for filters and pagination), but it is not verbose.

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 lacks information about the response structure (e.g., return format, pagination metadata). Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at what the agent can expect from the tool. This is a notable 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning pagination params (skip, limit) and summarizing filters, but does not elaborate on parameter format or behavior beyond the schema.

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 'list' and resource 'user availability schedule'. It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_calendar_schedule_get via the 'list' semantics and explicit mention of filters (location, calendar, user).

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?

While the description explains what the tool does and supports pagination, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ghl_calendar_schedule_get) or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied by the name and filters but not explicit.

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