List tasks calendar

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds a useful caveat that the endpoint was inferred from web-app traffic and lists the return fields, but it does not explain pagination, defaults, date-range behavior, or what the many calendar fields mean.

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 front-loaded with the endpoint and caveat, which is good, but the long comma-separated query-param list and raw return-key dump are unstructured and could be formatted more usefully. The information is relevant but not tightly edited.

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?

With no output schema, the description does provide the return key list, which helps an agent understand the response shape. However, it omits important context: sibling differentiation, default behavior, how the calendar variant differs from route-planner or search task tools, and what the returned fields represent.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters at a baseline level. The description merely repeats the query parameter names without explaining semantics for flags like include_visits, exclude_recurring, or how start/end/timezone interact.

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 verb and resource ("List tasks calendar") and the backing endpoint, but "calendar" is not explained and there is no differentiation from close siblings such as singleops_read_list_tasks_route_planner or singleops_read_search_tasks. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which calendar/list variant is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling task-listing or calendar-event tools. The only contextual note is a caution that results were inferred from traffic and should be confirmed, which is not usage guidance.

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