calendar_list_events

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the RFC3339 format and calendar default, but these largely repeat schema information. It does not disclose behavior such as pagination, result limits, or what happens with an invalid calendarId. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 short sentences with no filler: the core behavior comes first, followed by the needed time format and default calendar. Every clause earns its place, though an explicit verb would make it slightly stronger.

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 listing tool, the description plus schema covers the required time-window call well enough. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return shape, q search behavior, max pagination, or how to target a non-primary calendar beyond the schema default. This leaves moderate ambiguity for more advanced use cases.

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 60%, so the schema already documents q, timeMin, and timeMax. The description contributes an RFC3339 example and reinforces the primary-calendar default, which is useful but duplicative. It does not add meaning for q or max, though max's min/default/max are present in the schema. Overall this is adequate but not rich.

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 'Events in a window' clearly identifies the resource (events) and the scope (a time window), even though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list'. It is understandable and distinguishable from sibling calendar tools such as calendar_list_calendars, but it does not explicitly name or exclude that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Events in a window' implies the tool is used to fetch events within a time range, and 'Defaults to the primary calendar' gives a small usage hint. However, the description does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like calendar_list_calendars or calendar_search, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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