get_events

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

Without annotations, the description comprehensively explains behavior: parameter interactions (ignoring time filters and other params when event_id provided), defaults, dependency of include_attachments on detailed, and output formatting. It could mention error handling or edge cases like no events found, but overall it is transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by parameter descriptions and return value. While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the organization makes it easy to scan.

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 complexity of 9 parameters (1 required) and no annotations, the description is thorough. It explains all parameters, their interactions, defaults, and output format. It references list_calendars for calendar IDs, which helps with prerequisite knowledge. No major gaps are present.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It adds significant meaning: explains formats (RFC3339 for time_min/max), defaults (time_min defaults to current time when omitted), interactions (event_id overrides time filters), and the dependency chain for include_attachments. This far exceeds what the raw schema provides.

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 explicitly states it retrieves events from a specified Google Calendar, distinguishes between single event retrieval by ID and multiple events within a time range, and mentions keyword search. The verb 'retrieves' is clear, and the tool is distinct from siblings like create_event, modify_event, and delete_event.

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 guidance on when to use event_id vs time range, explains defaults for time_min (current time), and references list_calendars for obtaining calendar IDs. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons with alternative retrieval tools, which would further aid decision-making.

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