list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned field set and the default calendar behavior, which is real value since no output schema exists. It omits pagination/truncation behavior, which matters for a list tool capped at 250 results with a default of 50.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, then return fields, then default. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded, though the return-field enumeration reads as a list rather than integrated prose.

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 simple read-list tool with 5 parameters at 60% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, the time-range scope, and what comes back. The main gap is that pagination/result-limit behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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% and the schema itself documents query, time_max, time_min formats. The description adds only time-range framing and the 'primary' default, neither of which goes beyond the schema (calendar_id already has default 'primary'). No meaning is added for query or max_results.

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 ('List') and resource ('events in a calendar') plus the scoping constraint ('within a time range'), which distinguishes it from the singular get_event sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'within a time range' phrasing implies when this tool applies, and the required time_min/time_max reinforce that. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_event or list_calendars, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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