read_calendar

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, and it does little: 'read' implies a safe operation, but permission requirements, whether results are paginated (a limit param exists), and what happens with an empty range are all unstated. For a parameterized read with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the mode distinction front-loaded. Every clause directly supports correct invocation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, which the description correctly omits. Still, with 4 undocumented params, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the definition leaves the agent guessing about limit semantics and timestamp formatting.

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 0% and there are 4 params, so the description must compensate — it does partially, by defining the mutually exclusive roles of calendar_ref vs. start/end. However, 'limit' is never mentioned and the expected format of start/end (ISO string? date?) is left undefined in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('read/list calendar items') and, unusually, distinguishes two operating modes — single-item read via calendar_ref vs. range listing via start/end. It is clearer than most siblings' abbreviated names, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with calendar-adjacent siblings like find_meeting_times or save_meeting.

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?

It gives concrete routing rules: supply only calendar_ref for a single item, supply start/end for a listing. That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use find_meeting_times to schedule) or stating what happens if both modes' params are mixed.

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