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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful overlap semantics ('A task is returned when it overlaps the range') and the GET endpoint. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema's next_page hint or rate limits.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the resource and filtering modes, then the overlap rule and endpoint. No wasted words.

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 tool with fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description covers scope and overlap behavior adequately. Minor gap: no explicit return-shape or ordering note, but that's mostly covered by fields/sort parameters.

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 is already documented in the schema, including the start_date/end_date single-day-vs-range rule. The description restates that rule but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a clear verb (List) and resource (calendar tasks), and parenthetically defines what a calendar task is (appointments and to-dos on the schedule). It does not explicitly distinguish from get_calendar_task, though the plural/list form makes the split inferable.

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 explains the filtering modes: one date alone for a single day, both dates for a range, and/or user_ids. It gives clear conditions for parameter combinations but doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over get_calendar_task or get_availability.

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