calendars_get_calendars

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already communicate the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention filtering, pagination, or what the response contains. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes nothing new.

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 extremely short—just two words—but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structure that would help an agent understand the tool's scope, return value, or filtering behavior. Every sentence should earn its place; here there is not even a full sentence of useful content.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of calendars) and any side effects (though readOnly is implied by annotations). The description does not convey the operation's purpose beyond the generic name, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema and annotations, which are insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 (groupId, locationId, showDrafted) with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description provides no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 "Get Calendars" is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'calendars_get_calendars' and adds no additional specificity. It does not indicate whether this lists all calendars, supports filters, or differs from sibling tools like calendars_get_calendar or calendars_get_groups. While it has a verb and resource, it lacks any distinguishing detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative calendar-related tools. With dozens of sibling tools such as calendars_get_calendar, calendars_get_calendar_events, and calendars_get_schedule_by_id, the description gives an agent no indication of which operation is appropriate for a given context.

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