ofw_list_events

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses response-weight behavior (the custody grid is most of a response's weight), time semantics (OFW wall-clock times rendered with an offset per `timeZone`, defaulting to the server's DISPLAY_TZ), and format-specific behavior (ics returns a short JSON summary of what was included/excluded, then iCalendar text, with each custody period emitted as a 'Parenting time' event). This is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then ordered by decision relevance: what to include, then format, then the sibling alternative. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the em-dash-chained single paragraph is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure would be.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value explanation and does so for the ics path (summary block + iCalendar text) and the custody-grid weight. It is a 7-parameter read tool with sensible coverage of the high-value parameters, though the shape of the default JSON payload is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains why `types` matters (SCHEDULE dominates payload size), how `timeZone` is interpreted (OFW reports zoneless wall clock, this is the zone used to read and show it), and what `format:"ics"` actually changes about the output. The `view` and `detailed` parameters are only explained in the schema, not the description, keeping this below a 5.

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 and resource ('List OurFamilyWizard calendar items in a date range') and then enumerates exactly which item kinds are covered — events, connected/subscribed events, custody handoffs (TRANSITION), and the per-day custody grid (SCHEDULE). An agent can distinguish this from every calendar sibling (ofw_create_event, ofw_update_event, ofw_save_calendar_ics) without opening a schema.

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?

It states the selection rule explicitly ('Pass `types` to keep only some of them') and gives a concrete exclusion with rationale ('leave SCHEDULE out unless you need who-has-the-children per day'). It also routes the agent to the right alternative for a different need: 'To get a file or download link instead, use ofw_save_calendar_ics.'

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