List Calendars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the calendars are 'accessible to the authenticated user,' which confirms the scope. Since annotations carry most of the burden, the description adds modest value, earning a 3.

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 immediately states the verb and resource. It is concise with no extraneous information, efficiently communicating the tool's purpose.

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, read-only, output schema exists), the description is complete. It adequately explains what the tool does without needing additional details, as the output schema covers return values.

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 sole parameter (user_google_email) is fully described in the schema with 'The user's Google email address. Required.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 retrieves a list of calendars accessible to the authenticated user. The verb 'retrieves' is specific, and the resource 'calendars' is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_calendar (write) and get_events (events within a calendar).

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. While the tool's purpose is simple, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., to get events instead) or suggest any exclusions. A score of 2 reflects the lack of explicit usage context.

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