list_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful context that the tool operates on a Microsoft account (suggesting auth domain) and implies range filtering via 'intervallo richiesto.' However, it discloses nothing about read-only behavior, ordering, recurrence handling, or response characteristics, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 compact sentence with zero wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple tool with only 2 optional parameters. It front-loads the key information without fluff. Minor deduction because its brevity borders on under-specification, but structurally it's well-formed.

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 2 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides marginal completion: the Microsoft account scoping and range concept are present. However, given the lack of annotations, the description alone leaves the agent without guidance on range semantics or how this differs from the calendar-related sibling find_free_slots. Adequate only because output schema documents return values and the tool is simple.

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 0% schema description coverage and schema param names like 'days_back'/'days_ahead' that lack inline descriptions, the description was responsible for explaining parameter semantics. The phrase 'intervallo richiesto' only vaguely gestures at the date range concept without clarifying that values are day offsets from today, how defaults interact, or edge-case behavior. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema docs.

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 identifies the resource (calendar events) and scope (requested date range, Microsoft account). While it lacks an explicit verb, 'list' is implied by the name, and the 'account Microsoft' qualifier helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_messages. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly frame against sibling tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no statement about when to use this tool vs. alternatives like find_free_slots or create_event, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The description is entirely silent on usage context, so this scores at the 'no guidance' level.

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