outlook_calendar_list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says "upcoming." It does not disclose the default time window, result count, ordering, timezone handling, or pagination behavior — all of which matter for a parameterless listing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits information an agent would need.

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?

Because the tool has no parameters, the caller cannot control the time range, so the description should have stated the default window and result shape. It also has no output schema to fall back on and no annotations, leaving key operational details undocumented.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description's only implicit claim is the "upcoming" filter, which is not a parameter anyway.

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?

States a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("upcoming calendar events") and scopes the source to Microsoft Outlook on Windows. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as list_calendar_events, m365_list_events, or outlook_calendar_list_names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over the other calendar-listing tools in the catalog (list_calendar_events, m365_list_events, outlook_calendar_list_names). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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