calendar_get_upcoming_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, and the window semantics are clarified (today = day 0), but there is no mention of result ordering, timezone handling, recurring-event expansion, or whether the read has any side effects.

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 summary sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line conveys needed information with no filler or repetition.

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 3-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameters well but omits return-shape essentials: ordering, timezone basis for 'today', and recurring-event behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 and largely does: it explains that omitting calendar_name reads all calendars, defines days_ahead's day-0 convention, and states that limit is a maximum count. Defaults and types remain only in the schema, but the semantics are meaningfully enriched.

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) scoped to a time window starting today through N days ahead. This distinguishes it from calendar_list_events by the windowing semantics, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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?

Implied usage (get upcoming events within a horizon) is clear from the description, and it notes that omitting calendar_name reads all calendars. However, it never states when to prefer this over calendar_list_events or calendar_get_event, leaving routing to inference.

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