Calendar Health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no meaningful behavioral detail beyond boilerplate, such as what 'health' means, whether it queries system state, or what kind of diagnostics it returns.

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 short but not effectively concise: the single sentence is filler that restates the name and the MCP exposure mechanism. It does not earn its place because it conveys no operational information.

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?

Although the tool is simple with no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description still fails to explain what calendar health checking means or when it should be used. An agent cannot determine the tool's actual role or distinguish it from sibling health tools.

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 has zero parameters and the schema trivially covers 100% of them, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters, but that is acceptable given there are none.

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 effectively a tautology: it restates the tool name 'calendar_health' and title 'Calendar Health' inside a boilerplate wrapper. It does not say what the health check actually does, what resource it inspects, or what result it produces.

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 guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as reminders_health, mail_health, or system_health. No context is provided about the problem it solves or the conditions under which it should be preferred.

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