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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the recurrence-expansion behavior and a pointer to the underlying REST call, which is light added value but nothing on permissions, pagination loop behavior, or result shape beyond what the schema already says.

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 compact sentences: purpose and scope first, then the recurring-event flag, then the API reference. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried or repeated.

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 12-parameter, optional-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to select it and understand the primary filters and the recurrence mode. It could say more about paging workflow and what a returned entry contains, but the schema carries the per-parameter burden well.

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 one of the 12 parameters, including the from/to window semantics and offset/page_token distinction, is already documented in structured form. The description merely re-surfaces 'expanded' and the matter/calendar filters without adding format, precedence, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List calendar entries'), concretely illustrates the domain objects ('hearings, meetings, deadlines'), and states the core scoping dimension (a time window) plus the optional drill-downs (one matter or calendar). Nothing about it could be confused with the create_* siblings or any other list tool in the set.

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 clearly frames the usage context — 'in a time window, optionally for one matter or calendar' — and explains when to flip a mode flag ('Set expanded=true to get each occurrence of recurring events'). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to reach for create_calendar_entry or a differently filtered list), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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