List AddEvent Timezones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return shape ({ timezones, count }) and the filtering behavior, plus a concrete example. It does not go into edge cases or error behavior, but for a simple read-only lookup this is sufficient.

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: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, a Returns section, and two useful examples. Every part earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It includes the return shape, usage context, and a practical example, while annotations cover the safety profile. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the 'search' parameter as an optional case-insensitive filter. The description reinforces this with an example, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and identifies the resource as 'timezone values supported by AddEvent's timezone field on events and calendars.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, which operate on events, calendars, and RSVPs rather than timezone metadata.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before addevent_create_event or addevent_create_calendar if you're unsure of the exact timezone string. This provides clear contextual guidance and names the relevant alternative workflows.

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