get_upcoming_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says events are upcoming and within N days, but does not explain what 'upcoming' means regarding the current time, default day range, ordering, timezone handling, or output shape. Given the lack of annotation support, this is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation and time window efficiently, though it may be too terse to fully compensate for missing behavioral and usage details.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves critical invocation details unspecified: whether 'days' has a default, what range of events qualifies as 'upcoming', and how this tool differs from get_calendar_events. An agent would need to inspect sibling tool definitions or make assumptions to select and call this tool correctly.

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 50%: 'mailbox' is documented in the schema, but 'days' has no schema description. The description's 'next N days' adds some meaning to the days parameter, but it does not specify defaults, constraints, or how N maps to the exact parameter behavior. The description does not add any semantics for 'mailbox' beyond 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 states a specific action ('Get'), a resource ('calendar events'), and a time boundary ('next N days'). It is clearly a read operation distinct from calendar creation/update/cancel siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling get_calendar_events.

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 phrase 'upcoming calendar events' implies a temporal use case, but the description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_calendar_events, get_todays_briefing, or other calendar-related tools. There is no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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