gmail_upcoming_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; 'Read-only' merely restates it. The valuable addition is the TZID caveat: it warns that times are returned raw and that start_raw must be interpreted in the named zone, which prevents a real misinterpretation bug. Slightly less than 5 because it doesn't mention scan cost or result limits.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded, and the timezone caveat follows immediately after as the most actionable detail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return shape; naming start_raw does that partially, which is a solid touch. It still leaves open what else a result contains (event title, sender, attachment reference) and how results are ordered or truncated, so it is not fully complete.

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 ranges and defaults already documented for both parameters. The description conveys the general notion of a look-ahead window but adds no syntax or behavioral detail (e.g. how days_ahead interacts with max_threads truncation) beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Lists upcoming calendar events found in recent email invites (.ics)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_get_meeting_notes or gmail_search_messages, which search message content rather than extract event data.

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 implied by the resource description (scanning recent invites for upcoming events), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over e.g. gmail_get_meeting_notes or gmail_search_messages, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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