get_calendar

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and mostly fails it: read-only vs. mutating behavior, scope of items (user, workspace, date range), ordering, and pagination are all unstated. The only behavioral hint is that output is organized by lifecycle status, which is a small but real contribution.

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?

It is short but that is under-specification, not conciseness: a single sentence fragment with no leading verb, no subject, and no structure beyond a slash-separated list. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no main clause to front-load.

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?

With no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it says almost nothing about the return shape, filtering scope, or limits. For an aggregate calendar-style read tool, the agent cannot tell what it will actually receive.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is a bare empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies since the description cannot add value the schema lacks here.

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 is a noun-phrase fragment listing workflow states ('Planned / drafted / ready / approved / sent items') rather than a verb+resource statement. It never says what is retrieved or that a calendar is returned; the only link to the tool is the name 'get_calendar'. It hints at grouping by status but does not distinguish it from siblings like list_drafts or get_cadence_status.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of the scenario this serves, and no reference to an alternative such as list_drafts for raw draft access. An agent must guess whether this is the aggregate view or simply another draft lister.

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