get-calendar-view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it expands recurring instances rather than returning only seriesMaster, notes that isOnlineMeeting is not filterable and returns a 400 error, and clarifies that the event resource has no joinWebUrl property. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and a clearly labeled TIP section carrying operational detail. Most sentences earn their place, especially the Teams meeting workflow. However, the opening line's claim about 'some other calendar' conflicts with the subsequent sibling guidance, adding avoidable confusion. Otherwise this would be a 5.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the calendar view returns (occurrences, exceptions, single instances), notes the recurring-instance expansion behavior, specifies required parameters, routes non-default-calendar requests to the correct sibling, and gives actionable guidance for Teams meeting lookup and transcript retrieval. The parameter schema covers the remaining details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by emphasizing the required startDateTime/endDateTime format, recommending specific $select fields for Teams meetings, and explaining how to filter by subject with contains(). This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions and helps an agent compose correct query parameters.

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 identifies the action (get occurrences, exceptions, and single instances), the resource (calendar view over a time range), and explicitly distinguishes this from get-specific-calendar-view. However, the first sentence says 'from the user's default calendar, or from some other calendar of the user,' which is internally inconsistent with the later tip telling agents to use get-specific-calendar-view for non-default calendars. This ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it requires startDateTime and endDateTime in ISO 8601, instructs agents to use get-specific-calendar-view for non-default calendars, and provides concrete recipes for Teams meetings and subject search. It also tells agents what not to do (e.g., isOnlineMeeting is not filterable and returns 400). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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