calendar_list_calendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists primary, shared, and subscribed calendars, which gives a sense of scope and non-destructiveness. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, response format, or edge cases like empty results or hidden calendars, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It clearly states what is listed and the scope, making it self-sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (accountId) with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already handles the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'calendars' and scope ('for a Google account'), and enumerates the calendar types (primary, shared, subscribed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_list_events, so it fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 the use case: when you need all calendars associated with an account. There is no explicit alternative comparison, but the scope is well-defined and no exclusions are stated, providing clear context for when to use this tool.

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