extract_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by specifying the return payload (structured event data with time, location, attendees, status), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information: what it does and what it returns. No waste or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (structured event data with key fields). Given the simple parameter set and safe annotations, this is sufficient. It could mention edge cases like missing calendar parts, but that's not essential for basic usage.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (account, mailbox, email_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but per the rubric, high schema coverage warrants a baseline score of 3. No additional parameter context is necessary.

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's function: extracting calendar events (ICS/iCalendar) from an email. It uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('calendar events from an email'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_events (which lists existing calendar events) and extract_contacts (which extracts contacts).

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 context for use is clear: when you have an email containing calendar data and need structured event information. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The description implies usage rather than providing direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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