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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Cancel (delete)' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if the action is reversible, what happens to attendees, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover authentication requirements, error conditions, what happens to event attendees, confirmation behavior, or return values. The agent lacks critical information for safe usage.

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 description provides clear semantic explanations for both parameters ('Calendar ID where the event exists' and 'The unique identifier of the event to cancel'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 states the action ('Cancel (delete)') and resource ('a specific event from Google Calendar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_meet_event' or 'get_calendar_events' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing event ownership), comparison to similar tools, or scenarios where this is appropriate versus other event management operations.

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

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. While it states the tool creates events with Meet integration, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, whether the event is immediately published, what happens with invalid inputs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose statement. The Args section is well-structured but could be more concise by avoiding repetition of obvious information (like 'Event title/summary' for summary). Every sentence serves a purpose, though minor trimming is possible.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial information about what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, and behavioral details. The parameter documentation helps, but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual information needed for safe and effective use.

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, the description compensates well by providing clear parameter explanations in the Args section. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, including format examples for datetime parameters and default values. However, it doesn't fully explain all 7 parameters' semantics (like what 'primary' means for calendar_id).

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 states the specific action ('Create a new Google Calendar event') and resource ('with Google Meet integration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_calendar_events or cancel_calendar_event. It precisely communicates the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage for creating calendar events with Meet integration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_upcoming_events or cancel_calendar_event. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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

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 states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context like authentication or data format. For a read-only tool with no complex inputs, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline score of 4 is applied for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('all Google Calendars accessible to the user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_calendar_events' or 'get_today_events', which focus on events rather than calendars, but the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as authentication needs, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_calendar_events' for retrieving events instead of calendars. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly defined.

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

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. While it implies this is a read operation ('Get events'), it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what permissions are needed, how results are ordered, whether pagination is supported, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first. The Args section is neatly formatted and easy to parse.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter documentation but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (event structure, fields included), error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from sibling tools. The parameter documentation is good, but overall completeness is only minimal viable.

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 description provides parameter documentation in the Args section, adding meaningful context beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'calendar_id' defaults to 'primary', clarifies the ISO format requirement for time parameters, and specifies the default for 'max_results'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't fully explain the implications of null time values.

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 states the verb 'Get' and resource 'events from a specific Google Calendar', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_today_events' or 'get_upcoming_events' beyond mentioning 'specific Google Calendar' versus those tools' implied scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_today_events' or 'get_upcoming_events'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, authentication needs, or any contextual constraints that would help an agent choose between these similar calendar query tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' events (read operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, timezone handling, what 'today' means (local vs UTC), pagination, error conditions, or response format. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. The Args section is appropriately brief. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more naturally rather than as a separate section.

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 calendar query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'events' include, time boundaries for 'today', authentication needs, error handling, or response structure. Given the sibling tools suggest a calendar API context, more behavioral context is needed.

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 0%, but the description adds the parameter 'calendar_id' with explanation 'Calendar ID (default: primary)'. This provides basic semantics beyond the schema's title 'Calendar Id'. However, it doesn't explain format expectations, valid values beyond 'primary', or what happens with invalid IDs. With only 1 parameter, baseline would be 4, but the minimal explanation keeps it at 3.

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 states 'Get today's events from the primary calendar' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('today's events') with scope ('from the primary calendar'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_calendar_events' or 'get_upcoming_events', but the 'today' timeframe provides some implicit distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_calendar_events' or 'get_upcoming_events'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate versus other calendar query tools. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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 states the tool retrieves events but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, sorting order, what 'upcoming' means relative to current time, or whether it includes all-day events. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be integrated more smoothly. There's no redundant or wasted text.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or rate limits, doesn't differentiate from siblings, and provides minimal parameter details. For a tool with 2 parameters and multiple similar siblings, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'days_ahead' as 'Number of days to look ahead' and 'calendar_id' as 'Calendar ID'. However, it doesn't explain valid ranges (e.g., minimum/maximum days), what 'primary' means for calendar_id, or if other IDs are accepted. With 2 parameters and low coverage, this provides marginal compensation.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get upcoming events for the next N days'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('upcoming events') with a temporal scope ('next N days'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_calendar_events' or 'get_today_events', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_calendar_events', 'get_today_events', and 'get_all_calendars', there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope, filtering, or use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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