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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by describing the return structure (count, truncated flag indicating more rows) and pagination behavior, which helps the agent understand how results are paged and truncated.

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 compact and well-structured: a summary sentence plus a returns section. Every sentence is purposeful, and the key instruction (use exact column names) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 read-only search tool with rich schema documentation and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential context: the data source, the return shape, and pagination cues. It does not list event fields, but the schema's column list in where_clause suffices. A minor gap is the lack of any note about whether ordering or filtering options are mandatory, but overall it is complete enough.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description's instruction to use exact column names in where_clause reinforces the schema but adds no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the semantic load.

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 tool searches user's calendar events from table_calendar_data, identifying the specific verb ('search') and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like search_meetings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as search_meetings or list_prospect_events. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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