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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it maps to GET /cal_events, which is consistent with the annotations but reveals nothing new about pagination behavior, result volume, or error conditions.

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 with the resource and scope front-loaded, then the filtering capability, then the endpoint mapping. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 paginated list tool with zero required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about the returned event fields or total-count/next_page behavior, which the schema only hints at via the page description.

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 all six parameters (page, perpage, after, before, state, order) are documented in the schema itself. The description echoes the state and date-range concepts but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 calendar events") and disambiguates the resource with "appointments, meetings" plus the scope "of the account." No sibling tool covers calendar events (siblings are list_tasks, list_deals, etc.), so the resource alone separates it, though it never explicitly frames that distinction.

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?

"Filter by upcoming/old and date range" implies when the filters are useful but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool. An agent must infer that this is the tool for calendar data versus task or project listings.

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