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 without the description. The description adds only that results are time-window scoped and that it maps to Teamleader events.list; it says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or result volume.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is listed and its time scope, the second enumerates the available filters. No filler, and the API mapping note is short.

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 13 all-optional parameters and 92% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope and filter surface adequately, and annotations cover safety. The only meaningful gap is pagination/result-set behavior (page, page_size, default 20) which the agent must read from the schema instead.

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 92%, so the schema already explains every filter precisely, including UUID patterns and ISO 8601 formats. The description's filter enumeration (user, activity type, term, attendee, link, task, done) largely restates the schema rather than adding semantics such as how link_id and link_type combine or how the time window pairs with starts_before/ends_after.

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 narrows the scope with '(meetings, calls) in a time window', so an agent knows exactly what entity is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like teamleader_list_tasks or teamleader_list_activity_types, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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 enumerated filters imply when the tool is useful (find events by user, contact, deal, task, done state), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance or statement of preconditions. Usage must be inferred from the filter list.

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