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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' weakly implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about read-only nature, required auth/calendar scoping, timezone handling, or result size — significant gaps for a tool with zero 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 and front-loads the operation, but the 'Run Google calendar action:' prefix is boilerplate that consumes space without adding information. Adequately sized, minimally informative.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least indicate the return shape (list of events for the week) and the timezone/calendar scope. None of that is present, leaving an agent to guess how to interpret results.

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% and the single 'detail' parameter is documented in the schema as task-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain what detail content the tool expects for a weekly event lookup.

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?

States a recognizable verb+resource ('check events week') and the weekly scope distinguishes it from the sibling calendar__check_events_today in name, but 'check' is vague about what is actually returned and the 'Run Google calendar action:' wrapper is filler rather than clarification.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the obvious alternative (calendar__check_events_today), and no statement about prerequisites such as which calendar or account is queried. Only the tool name implies the weekly window.

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