timetree_list_occurrences

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

Annotations only declare it is a safe, idempotent read; the description goes well beyond by disclosing failure semantics that exist nowhere else — unsupported rules, unsafe DST, or truncation set complete=false. It also bounds the recurrence support and explicitly disclaims two things agents commonly assume (edit eligibility, free/busy proof). With no output schema, this is the only place these return-value caveats appear.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core operation and window bound before the caveats. Every clause carries distinct information (scope, rule subset, snapshot requirement, failure flag, non-goals).

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the critical unknowns: window limits, supported recurrence rules, and how incompleteness is signalled. It leaves the shape of returned occurrences and how limit interacts with the complete flag unaddressed, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 60%: start_at, end_at, and query are documented in-schema, while calendar_id (pattern only) and limit (bounds/default only) carry no prose anywhere. The description reinforces the 93-day end_at constraint and hints that calendar_id is a 'selected-calendar snapshot', but adds nothing about limit or pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read dated occurrences') plus concrete scope limits: an explicit window of at most 93 days and a 'narrow DAILY/WEEKLY/MONTHLY/YEARLY rule subset'. It implicitly separates itself from timetree_get_occurrence_for_edit ('does not establish edit eligibility') but never names that or timetree_list_events explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (an explicit bounded window, a complete selected-calendar snapshot) and a when-not signal ('does not establish edit eligibility or prove a time is free'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should call for edit checks or free/busy queries, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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