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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that, namely the default scope (upcoming events) and default date window, which is exactly the kind of default-behavior disclosure that helps an agent invoke it correctly.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose leads and the defaults follow.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and a fully-described schema, the description supplies the default-scope behavior an agent needs. No output schema exists, but for a simple list tool the coverage is essentially complete.

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 every parameter (query, date_from, date_to, calendar_id, max_results, in_workspace) is already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the date-range and query filtering at a high level, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List events from Google Calendar') that clearly separates it from the create/update/delete siblings. It doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from calendar_check_availability, which is the closest ambiguous sibling, so it falls 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 note that it 'shows upcoming events by default' and can be filtered gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus calendar_check_availability or any exclusions stated.

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