list-specific-calendar-events

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that this tool does NOT expand recurring events and only returns seriesMaster. This is a critical caveat not covered by annotations (which only declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint). The warning adds significant value beyond structured fields, preventing incorrect use.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the critical warning presented clearly as a tip. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague phrasing. The structure is optimally concise for an agent to quickly grasp both the function and the limitation.

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 has no output schema, the description implies the response contains events by saying 'List events'. The warning about recurring events gives essential context that shapes expectations. Pagination and other behaviors are covered by parameter descriptions (top, skip, fetchAllPages). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that the response is a list of event objects with their fields, but that's inferable. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information—the recurring event warning is global, not per-parameter. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, consistent with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action (list events), the resource (events from a specific calendar), and the addressing method (by calendar ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-calendar-events (which likely lists across all calendars) and get-specific-calendar-view (which expands recurring events). The purpose is 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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'Use get-specific-calendar-view instead' when recurring event expansion is needed. This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to use instead. It also notes that this tool addresses events by calendar ID, implying that it's for a single calendar rather than all calendars.

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