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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether any side effects occur. It is not misleading, but it is very thin for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, but the prefix 'Run Google calendar action:' is redundant filler that could be removed. The useful information ('check events today') is front-loaded after the filler, so structure is adequate but not maximally efficient.

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 simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it requires calendar selection, or any behavioral constraints. An agent has only the name and schema to infer usage.

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%, and the single optional parameter 'detail' is documented in the schema as 'Task-specific details from the objective.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'check events today' for Google Calendar. It is distinguishable from the sibling tool check_events_week by the 'today' scope, though the prefatory 'Run Google calendar action' is generic filler.

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 name and description imply when to use it (for today's events versus the sibling check_events_week), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct reference to alternatives. Usage is only inferred from the wording.

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