microsoft_list_events

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List' (a read operation) but omits details like pagination, result limit behavior, timezone handling, or what happens when start/end are null. The output schema is present but the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits.

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 contains an incomplete parameter list (top description truncated). The structure is minimal: a one-line summary followed by an Args block that is not fully written. It is not well-polished.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return value details are not required. However, the description lacks explanation of default behavior (e.g., window when null, top default of 50). It is adequate for a simple list tool but has gaps regarding parameter constraints.

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 compensate. It adds format hints for 'start' and 'end' (ISO 8601) and names 'top', but the top description is incomplete. This adds some meaning beyond bare schema titles but is not thorough.

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 clearly states the tool lists Outlook calendar events on the connected Microsoft 365 calendar. The verb 'List' and resource 'calendar events' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling listing tools (e.g., microsoft_list_emails, microsoft_list_drive_files) by specifying the calendar context. The incomplete top parameter description does not obscure the overall purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other list tools. The agent receives no contextual hints for tool selection beyond the tool name and basic description.

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