List Calendar Events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists events, implying a read-only operation, but omits critical details such as timezone handling, recurrence expansion, pagination limits, and whether it operates on the default calendar or all calendars.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no redundant words. However, it lacks details that could be added without sacrificing conciseness, such as a note about parameter usage.

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 the tool's simplicity (two string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is not sufficiently complete. It fails to specify whether the parameters are required, how they should be formatted, and what the return format looks like. The description leaves ambiguity that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate for it. The term 'date range' vaguely maps to the 'start' and 'end' parameters but provides no format, required status, or interpretation hints (e.g., inclusive/exclusive). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 verb ('list'), resource ('calendar events'), and scope ('in a date range'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like calendar_create_event (which creates events) by implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools to further clarify distinctions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as search or create tools. There are no exclusions or context hints about prerequisites (e.g., calendar permissions). The description relies entirely on the tool's name and implicit understanding.

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