list_events

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing behavior such as including externally synced events, the mutually exclusive requirement for calendar_id/agent_id, and the expand parameter's constraints (requires start_after and start_before, max 366 days apart). It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable instructions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, scope, and key filtering options. It doesn't explain pagination behavior or return structure, but those are partially covered by the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool 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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description summarizes parameter usage (e.g., 'Narrow with start_after/start_before') but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'events', specifies scope (on a calendar or across agent's calendars), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning inclusion of externally synced events. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (listing events) and includes key requirements (provide calendar_id OR agent_id). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives like get_event, but the usage instructions are sufficiently clear for an AI agent.

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