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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait (searches the next year unless time boundaries are given) and the search scope across titles, descriptions, and locations. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe pagination or result limits, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. It adds some value but leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 two sentences, immediately stating what the tool does and the default time behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits the function of limit and calendarId, and gives no information about return format or result count. Agents cannot fully predict the tool's behavior for all parameter combinations.

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% (just mailbox). The description adds meaning for query (text search across titles, descriptions, locations) and timeMin/timeMax (window) via the 'next year unless a window is given' phrase. However, limit and calendarId are left completely unexplained, and the schema itself provides no descriptions for them. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly.

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 clearly states the tool finds events matching a text query across titles, descriptions, and locations, which distinguishes it from list_google_calendar_events (listing without text search) and get_google_calendar_event (retrieving a specific event). The search scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_google_calendar_events or search_outlook_calendar_events. It does not state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or suggest the tool for text-based search rather than full listing. The only contextual hint is the default time window, which is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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