get_agenda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with "Read events." It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that omitting from_iso/to_iso uses Kalendia's default window and that the return value is an events array. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but for a read-only tool this is fairly transparent.

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 concise: three sentences with clear line breaks. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds value—no filler or repetition of structural metadata.

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 simple read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: parameter sources, default behavior, and return shape. It doesn't mention error handling or timezone details, but those are less critical for selection and invocation. It's complete enough for the agent to proceed.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's origin (list_connections, list_calendars), format (ISO-8601 with example), and optionality (default window). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Read events from one calendar in a time window." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calendars (which lists calendars) or create_event (which writes), and the "one calendar" qualifier sets it apart from list_all_calendars.

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 guidance on parameter sourcing: connection_id comes from list_connections, and calendar_id is a provider_calendar_id from list_calendars. It also explains optional parameter behavior (omit for default window). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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