get_calendar_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly scopes the operation to returning metadata only and explicitly excludes content, which is a transparency trait. It also implies a read-only nature (returning rather than modifying), though it doesn't explicitly state safety. For a simple status tool, 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 a single sentence that states the exact scope and exclusion upfront. It is concise with zero waste, front-loading the primary function ('Return source-health and cache metadata') before the caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, an output schema (which presumably details the response structure), and a clear statement of what the tool returns and excludes, the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without additional information. The exclusion of calendar content also clarifies how it differs from siblings, making the context complete enough.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. According to the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate here as the description adds no extraneous parameter info and none is needed.

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 states a clear purpose: returning source-health and cache metadata. It explicitly says what it does NOT do ('does not reveal calendar content'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_availability and find_free_slots that would deal with calendar content. The verb 'Return' names a specific resource and scope.

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 includes a 'when not to use' clue by stating it does not reveal calendar content, implying it's not for content queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide conditions like 'use this when you need health/cache status vs availability/slots.' An agent could infer but isn't directly guided to siblings.

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