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 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.