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

The description discloses many important behaviors—visibility filtering, free/busy limitations, defaults, exclusions, and a warning. However, it directly contradicts the openWorldHint=false annotation by stating 'No match is thus NOT proof that no such event exists,' which is an open-world claim. Per the contradiction rule, this dimension must be scored 1.

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 three short paragraphs, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, its visibility caveats, and its range/exclusion rules. It is front-loaded, dense, and contains no filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented, the description covers the important behavioral context: visibility limits, warning behavior, default range, exclusions, and the no-match caveat. It loses one point because the openWorldHint annotation conflicts with the description, leaving the agent with inconsistent signals about whether absence of results is meaningful.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra constraints: the range is a single span of at most 92 days, lookback is bounded to one year, and the default window is last 7 days plus next 85. This goes beyond the schema without fully re-explaining the query parameter.

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: 'Finds events by text across the calendars shared with this access — case-insensitive substring match on title, location and description.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_availability, list_calendars, create_event, delete_event, and update_event.

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?

It gives useful context by referencing get_availability for range and visibility semantics, and it explains limitations such as free/busy calendars not matching. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this tool when X' or 'instead of Y,' so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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