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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the search covers 'the next year unless a window is given' and which fields are searched. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, how results are limited, or what return shape to expect, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core search behavior, then adds the essential default-window detail. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this two-sentence description leaves too much unspecified. An agent still lacks clarity on limit behavior, calendarId semantics, time parameter formats, and result structure. The definition is not complete enough for confident invocation in varied contexts.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the query parameter by naming matched fields and suggests the meaning of timeMin/timeMax via 'unless a window is given.' But limit and calendarId are left entirely unexplained, and time window format is not specified, so the description does not sufficiently cover the parameter space.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find events whose title, preview text or location matches a query.' It clearly identifies this as a calendar event search tool and distinguishes it from message/file search tools by naming calendar fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_outlook_calendar_events or search_google_calendar_events, so it does not earn a 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 description implies usage: use this tool when you have a text query against event title, preview, or location, and it explains the default time window behavior. But it provides no explicit guidance about when to use list_outlook_calendar_events instead, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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