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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely non-obvious context, namely the required `integrations:read` scope and the rule that free text arrives in untrusted_fields and must be treated as data rather than instructions. It still says nothing about what happens if the integration is not connected or expired.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The permission and untrusted-data notes are packed tightly, though the second sentence could be split for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description does mention untrusted_fields, which hints at the return shape, but it never states what a calendar object contains (identifier, name, primary flag) or how to page through results. For a small read tool this is close to adequate, but the missing provider semantics and result shape leave real gaps.

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 one required parameter, `provider`, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It never says what values `provider` accepts (enum-like strings? the integration slug?), nor how it relates to the connected account being queried.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a connected account's calendars.' That is unambiguous about what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools that also deal with integrations and calendars, such as list_integrations or choose_integration_calendar.

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 and no mention of alternatives. An agent could infer this should be called after connecting an integration, but the description never says so, nor does it say what to do with the returned calendars (for example, pass one to choose_integration_calendar).

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