list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the key recurrence behavior: recurring events are returned as series with their recurrence rule and occurrences might need expansion. It does not cover output format or pagination, but for a read-only listing that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose first and the non-obvious recurrence behavior right after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with full parameter schema coverage, the description covers the important operational facts: range, default calendar, and recurrence behavior. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and it doesn't mention result shape, sorting, or how search_events differs, but these are not blockers.

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 already documents all 4 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about defaulting to the user's default calendar repeats the calendar_uid schema default, and it adds no syntax or format details for date_min/date_max beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List calendar events in a date range' with 'agenda view', so an agent knows it is a broad chronological listing. It does not explicitly contrast with search_events, so it misses the top-level sibling differentiation needed for 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?

'Agenda view' and the date-range framing imply it is for browsing all events over a period, but the description never says when to use this over search_events or mentions exclusions. The usage context is present implicitly, not explicitly.

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