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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: deleted events carry delete_dt, recurring events return as series not occurrences, and the 30-day cap. This is more than the annotations provide, though it could clarify whether it requires auth or paginates.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: scope, series handling, delete_dt marker, and the sync feedback instruction. Front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with the endpoint hint, no filler.

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, two-param tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral surprises (delete_dt, series-vs-occurrences, 30-day limit, sync loop). No output schema exists, so a bit more on response shape could help, but it's largely 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 coverage is 100%, so mode and since_timestamp are already fully documented in the schema, including the mode enum behavior and the timestamp constraints. The description reinforces the 30-day limit and the sync feedback loop but adds little syntactic detail beyond the schema. 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+resource (list events created/changed/deleted since a timestamp) and differentiates from siblings like teamup_list_events by framing it as a synchronization delta feed. The agent can immediately tell this is the incremental-sync tool, not a general listing tool.

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?

Explicitly frames usage ('for syncing') and gives a concrete operational instruction: pass the reply's timestamp as since_timestamp next time. It also documents the 30-day lookback constraint and the mode enum semantics, so an agent knows when and how to use it, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives.

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