calendar_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait not in the annotations — that recurring events are expanded into occurrences within the range — but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or behavior for oversized ranges.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the recurrence caveat is folded in efficiently. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for the parameter burden it carries.

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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain date formats, the limit cap, and return shape. It covers only the recurrence-expansion behavior, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently with correct inputs.

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 must carry the semantics. It implies start/end bounding but gives no date format, timezone handling, or calendar_id expectations, and never mentions the limit/cap parameter at all, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (calendar occurrences) with a clear scope (bounded date range, recurring events included), so the agent knows this expands recurrences rather than listing a single event. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from calendar_read or calendar_list, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'bounded date range' hints that start/end are mandatory, but there is no statement of when to use this over calendar_read or calendar_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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