ghl_get_calendar_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the event types (appointments and blocked slots) but does not mention pagination, response format, or filtering behavior. Basic read behavior is clear, but deeper context is missing.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the essential purpose but lacks details on response structure, optional filters behavior, or whether pagination exists. It is adequate but not rich enough for a fully autonomous agent.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema carries most parameter semantics. The description only implies date range via 'startTime' and 'endTime' but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'calendar events' and clarifies the scope as 'appointments and blocked slots' for a 'date range'. This distinguishes it from siblings like ghl_get_calendars (list calendars) and ghl_get_appointment (single appointment).

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 usage is implied: use when you need calendar events (appointments and blocked slots) within a date range. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like ghl_get_free_slots or ghl_get_contact_appointments, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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