list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the public-calendar scope, date-range filtering, and timezone default behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, limits, return shape, or error/edge behavior, leaving moderate gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence efficiently provides the key usage prerequisites and timezone default. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 list operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, timezone default, and parameter provenance. It is slightly incomplete because it does not characterize the return data, but the operation is simple and the schema handles the parameter details.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the alias_code source and ISO date format. The description mostly restates these facts, adding little semantic value beyond reinforcing the parameter relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'events in a TimeTree public calendar within a date range.' It also references alias_code from list_calendars, distinguishing this tool from sibling list_calendars and create/update event tools.

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 gives concrete guidance: use alias_code (from list_calendars) and ISO date strings for from/to, and notes the default timezone. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the read-only list purpose and sibling tool names make appropriate usage clear.

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