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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior the schema does not express: the default search window extends one year forward unless timeMin/timeMax are given. It does not describe pagination or how limit interacts with results.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one default an agent needs to know. 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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the time-window default but omits the semantics of calendarId, limit, and the date formats of timeMin/timeMax. Adequate for basic invocation, but under-specified for confident parameter construction.

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 only 17% (only mailbox is documented), so the description must carry more of the parameter burden. It clarifies only that the query applies to titles, descriptions and locations, leaving calendarId, timeMin/timeMax format, and limit semantics unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 (find/search) and resource (events), and goes further by stating the searched fields (titles, descriptions, locations). This clearly separates it from list_google_calendar_events, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling by name.

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 only usage-relevant guidance is the implicit default (a one-year forward window), which tells the agent what happens if no window is supplied. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_google_calendar_events or how it behaves relative to search_outlook_calendar_events.

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