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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the sources aggregated, including task due dates, parent pages, and open suggestions, but it does not address return ordering or pagination.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior: retrieving entries for a period from all sources. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and explicit safety annotations, the description covers the key aggregation behavior and open suggestions. It does not describe the returned event shape or ordering, but the overall definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and both from and to already document the JJJJ-MM-TT format and defaults. The description only implies a date range through 'Zeitraum' and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool retrieves calendar entries for a time range from all sources, including own events, task due dates, parent pages, and open suggestions. It is specific about the resource and aggregation scope, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as calendar_to_screen or list_tasks.

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 date-range and all-sources scope imply when to use this tool for calendar viewing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives such as calendar_to_screen or list_tasks are not mentioned, leaving routing to inference.

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