get_events_range

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral facts — bounds are inclusive, results are sorted chronologically, and future as well as past ranges are supported — but says nothing about permissions, result size/pagination (despite a limit parameter capped at 500), or what happens when the range is very large.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the inclusive range and adds sorting order without any filler. Nothing in it is redundant or wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers the core range-and-sort semantics of this read tool. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation and the include_description flag, which is minor relative to the schema's coverage of the primary parameters.

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 date parameters and program_type are already well described in the schema, including accepted formats and a pointer to list_program_types, so the description need not repeat them. However, it adds no meaning for the more ambiguous inputs — particularly include_description, whose effect is undocumented in both places — leaving roughly 40% of parameters unilluminated.

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 names a specific resource (programs/events) and the exact scope: between two dates, inclusive, sorted by time, past or future. That is far more precise than the name alone, but it never distinguishes this from close siblings like get_events, get_week, or search_events, which all plausibly return events over a time window.

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 statement of when to prefer this over get_events, get_week, or search_events, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'past or future' hints at bidirectional range queries, but the agent must infer whether this or get_week is the right tool for a given request.

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