Calendar agenda

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavioral facts: long ranges are split into windows and read sequentially with pauses, and safe mode caps a range at 92 days. That 92-day constraint materially affects how an agent should chunk requests. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't hint at response shape or whether the pause means slow/large responses.

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?

Three tight sentences: resource scope first, then the operational caveat about windowing/92-day safe mode, then the filter options. The status legend is dense but earns its space as the only decoding available. 'With a pause' is slightly vague but otherwise no waste.

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 5-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers range limits, chunking behavior, and both filter dimensions, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. The 'fresh'/cache-bypass parameter and any notion of result volume are left to the schema and inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful meaning the schema lacks: the single-letter status codes are fully decoded (A accepted, W waiting, C canceled, D declined, F finished, N no-show, M modified, O prepayment awaiting, P proposed, R rejected, V unverified), which the schema only types as a 1-character string. It does not explain 'fresh' or the staff_id semantics, holding it at 4.

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?

Opens with a specific resource list (appointments, reserved time, time off) and a date-range scope, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not contrast itself with close siblings such as calendar_month or calendar_changed_dates, so it falls 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 presence of from/to and the status/staff filters suggests 'use this to review a date range,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance (e.g., versus calendar_month for a month view or the change feed for deltas).

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