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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the default 7-day window and the specific event fields that will be returned.

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 front-load the core action, then provide the return contract and usage guidance. No filler or repetition that weakens the definition.

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 list operation with fully documented optional parameters and annotations covering safety, the description covers defaults, output fields, and intended use. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the start, end, and top parameters are already fully documented with defaults and formats. The description adds the default 7-day window and return fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list events from the user's Outlook/Microsoft 365 calendar. The time-window scope and return fields make it clearly distinct from siblings such as get_event, list_calendars, and find_meeting_times without needing to open the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to see scheduled meetings or appointments, giving a clear selection context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough for an agent to choose it over sibling event tools.

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