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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, it discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: recurring events are expanded into occurrences within the requested range, each with fecha and es_repeticion. It also explains visibility boundaries (local vs. synced personal accounts) and cross-workspace aggregation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses short paragraphs for recurrence behavior, visibility, and sibling guidance. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary but every paragraph carries useful information, so it avoids padding.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains key return semantics (expanded occurrences, fecha, es_repeticion) and scoping. It does not describe the full shape of an event (e.g., title, start/end times, ordering), so an agent might still need to inspect results, but the core call semantics are 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% and each parameter is well described, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the schema's workspace_id omission behavior and adds minor output context (each event indicates its workspace), but it does not add new syntax or format details 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?

The description names the resource (calendar events), the scope (date range), and the key behavior (recurrences already expanded). It also differentiates the tool from siblings by naming get_agenda and explaining when that alternative should be used.

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 explicitly states when not to use it: for 'what do I have today/this week' with tasks and reminders, use get_agenda instead. It also instructs that without workspace_id the tool aggregates all workspaces, so it should not be called once per workspace.

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