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, and it discloses nothing: it does not state that the operation is a read, what the time window's boundaries are, whether it is scoped to the authenticated user, or what is returned. 'Check' weakly implies read-only, but nothing is confirmed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is nothing wasted because there is nothing there.

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 calendar-query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at least define the time window and expected return. Both are missing, leaving a sibling-ambiguous call with an underspecified 'detail' argument.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about what 'detail' should contain, but with a single fully-documented parameter this meets the baseline.

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 largely restates the tool name ('check events week'), adding only the 'Google calendar action' domain. It does not clarify what 'week' means (current week, upcoming week, or an unspecified window) or what form the result takes, so the agent learns little beyond the identifier itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite an identical-purpose sibling (check_events_today) sitting directly next to it. The agent must infer the difference purely from the names.

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