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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about 'one resolved calendar' and the event.id workflow. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering defaults, or output shape, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: the verb, the resource scope, and the intended workflow are all present without redundancy.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It gives a clear purpose but leaves search semantics, filter usage, pagination, account disambiguation, and return values unexplained. The low schema coverage makes this a significant gap for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 only 22%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the purpose. Many parameters such as busy, limit, title, cursor, offset, and event_type are left undocumented. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, making it hard for an agent to know which filters to use.

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: 'List or search events inside one resolved calendar.' It also clarifies the primary use case: 'obtain event.id before reading, updating or deleting an event,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from event mutation tools and calendar listing tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before reading, updating, or deleting an event. It implies the tool is for working within a single resolved calendar, setting a clear prerequisite. It does not name an alternative like calendar_get_event, but the intended workflow is clear enough.

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