events_list

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description adds the 'inclusive date range' detail, which clarifies how the date parameters behave. However, it does not disclose the response format or any filtering behavior beyond what the annotations imply. This is an acceptable but not exceptional disclosure given the annotation coverage.

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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, then specifies the date range scope. There is no redundancy or filler, 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?

Given the simplicity of a listing tool and the thorough schema, the description adequately communicates what is needed for a correct call. It does not mention response shape, but that is typically inferred for list operations. The absence of an output schema is offset by the clarity of the purpose and parameters, though a note on return format would be helpful.

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 provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the description does not need to re-explain them. The phrase 'inclusive date range' adds semantic meaning to the newest/oldest parameters, but it does not elaborate on optional parameters like resolve or category. Its contribution is marginal because the schema already covers the basics.

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 lists Intervals calendar events within an inclusive date range. It specifies a distinct resource (calendar events) that differentiates it from siblings like activities_list or athlete_get, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool should be preferred. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for distinct selection among siblings.

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