List calendar events

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the default response is a compact summary that omits the structured-workout document, and fields can change that. This non-obvious default would otherwise surprise an agent. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about result ordering, result caps, or pagination for large 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose plus the most surprising behavior (default compact projection) are both front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the return-shape default, and annotations cover read-only safety. It is missing only operational detail such as pagination or whether very wide date ranges are truncated, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, with fields, oldest, and newest all documented in the schema (including the compact 14-field default and the ["*"] escape hatch), so the schema carries the load. The description restates the fields behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (List) and resource (events on the athlete's training calendar) scoped to a date range, which an agent can readily distinguish from the singular get_event sibling. It does not explicitly name a sibling or carve out what it is not, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the date-range framing suggests bulk retrieval versus get_event for a single event, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or limits on range size.

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