get-specific-calendar-view

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details that recurring event instances are expanded with seriesMasterId and type fields, mentions pagination via fetchAllPages, and explains filtering for Teams meetings with joinWebUrl. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect from the tool output.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core purpose stated first, followed by a tip bullet explaining key features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and fits within a reasonable length for a tool with many parameters.

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 (16 parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context about the tool's behavior: it explains recurring event expansion, filtering, pagination, and Teams meeting specifics. It does not fully describe the return structure but compensates by mentioning key fields (seriesMasterId, type, joinWebUrl). The presence of annotation hints and schema descriptions further supports completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value beyond the schema by providing usage hints for parameters like fetchAllPages (warning about large payloads) and mentioning that startDateTime/endDateTime should be in ISO 8601 format (though schema already states this). However, it does not introduce new parameter meanings or constraints not already in 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?

The description clearly states that this tool returns expanded recurring event instances for a specific calendar within a date range, using specific verbs like 'returns' and 'requires'. While it distinguishes itself from generic calendar views by mentioning 'for a specific calendar', it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get-calendar-view or list-calendar-events, which slightly detracts from perfect clarity.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it requires startDateTime and endDateTime in ISO 8601 format, explains how to retrieve all pages with fetchAllPages, and how to filter for Teams meetings using $filter. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or directly contrast with alternative tools like get-calendar-view, leaving some ambiguity.

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