Apple Suggest Calendars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague 'current Apple data surfaces' context and the completion-fallback role, which is useful but not a substantive behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and usage context are front-loaded, and the completion-fallback note 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?

The description is adequate for a simple suggestion tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, but it leaves parameter semantics entirely uncovered and does not clarify the shape of the expected suggestion behavior. An agent could invoke it for calendar completion, but not with full confidence about query/limit handling.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain 'limit' and 'query', but it does not mention either parameter. The tool name implies calendar suggestions, but no meaning is added about how query filters or how limit affects results.

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 verb ('Suggest') and resource ('Calendars'), and adds the distinctive context that it is a completion fallback for clients without MCP completion support. This clearly separates it from the many sibling suggest_* tools by naming the calendar resource and its intended role.

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 phrase 'completion fallback for clients without MCP completion support' explicitly tells the agent when this tool should be used. It does not name explicit alternatives or list exclusions, but the use case is clear enough to route selection correctly.

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