get_calendar_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states that events are returned within a range. It does not disclose whether recurring events are included, how timezone affects results, whether results are sorted, or any permissions/side effects. This is minimal behavioral information beyond the basic function.

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 long, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read operation but has clear gaps. It does not explain return value structure (no output schema), lacks usage alternatives to distinguish from sibling tools, and omits edge-case behavior like timezone handling or event ordering. For a tool with four parameters and many siblings, this is minimally complete but not thorough.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the description need not explain them. The description only mentions startDateTime and endDateTime, but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Thus, the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('calendar events from Microsoft Outlook'), and explicitly scopes it to events between startDateTime and endDateTime. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like create_calendar_event and delete_calendar_event.

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 implies usage by describing the time-based retrieval function, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternative calendar tools like get_series_master or list_series_instances. No exclusions are stated, and the broader context of sibling tools is not referenced.

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