List Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds context about accepted time formats (local dates/times or timezone-bearing ISO-8601), which helps with behavior interpretation, but it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, ordering, or limits. This is adequate given the 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 two sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence and parameter formats in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema provide a solid understanding. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or whether calendarIds filtering is applied. These gaps are not severe given the tool's simplicity but prevent a perfect score.

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 descriptions already cover start and end with detailed format explanations, covering 67% of parameters. The description summarizes these formats but does not add meaning for calendarIds, which lacks a schema description. The concise summary adds some value, but the calendarIds parameter remains under-explained, relying on its self-explanatory name.

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 lists calendar events within a time window, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_get_event (single event) and calendar_create_event. The verb 'list' and resource 'calendar events' are specific and unambiguous.

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 time-window scope provides clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as using calendar_get_event for a single event. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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