Get Upcoming Events

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

The annotations indicate `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, meaning it's a safe read operation that returns partial data. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating the server-side caps (1 week, 20 events) and that results silently truncate, which is beyond what the annotations convey. It could be a 5 if it also described the return format, but given the annotations already cover the safety profile, this is strong.

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, using only three sentences, and front-loads the core purpose before introducing the alternative. Every sentence adds value: purpose, limitations, and usage guidance. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its inherent limitations, and when to use an alternative. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without missing critical context.

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 has zero parameterscars; schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no parameters to describe). The description adds meaning by explaining that the tool returns the current user's upcoming events, which is essential information not derivable from the empty schema. This is a case where the description compensates for the lack of parameter details, earning a 4.

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: retrieving the current user's upcoming calendar events and assignments. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `list_calendar_events` by specifying its default scope, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: if a longer or specific date range is needed, use `list_calendar_events` with explicit `start_date`/`end_date`. It also discloses the endpoint's inherent limitations (1 week, 20 events), which are not adjustable, preventing misuse.

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