ofw_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral information such as default summary vs detailed output or ordering, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description's limited addition earns a baseline 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then states the date-range filter. It contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

This simple list tool has only three parameters and an annotation for read-only safety, so the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain the shape or fields of the returned events, and the detailed parameter's effect is only documented in the schema. This leaves a modest gap in what the agent can expect as a result.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters at 100% coverage, including formats for startDate/endDate and the effect of the detailed flag. The description does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline 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 uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('OurFamilyWizard calendar events') and a clear scope ('in a date range'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like ofw_create_event and ofw_delete_event. No ambiguity exists about the tool's high-level function.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving events within a date range, aligned with the required startDate and endDate parameters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the read-only usage context obvious, providing clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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