get_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a non-obvious default ('Defaults to today if empty'), but it does not discuss read-only status, authentication needs, or any limitations on returned events.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the input format, and the default behavior efficiently.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could have added whether events come from a specific calendar or across all calendars, but the tool's simple signature makes that omission non-critical.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter by specifying both the expected format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the default behavior when the date is empty. This is more meaningful than the raw schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('events'), and adds the date scoping in a standard format. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools list_accounts and list_calendars, which target different resources.

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 description provides clear context for when to call the tool: when events for a specific date are needed. It also communicates the behavior when no date is supplied, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to an alternative tool.

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