Calendar Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the default 90/365-day window, configuration via lookback/lookahead settings, the windowApplied echo, override semantics, and limit clamping/rejection behavior. This is unusually transparent about side effects and edge cases.

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 dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs: purpose, requirement, default-window behavior, override semantics, and limit rules. It is well-structured, front-loading the core operation before explaining edge-case behavior, with no filler.

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 four parameters, zero required, no annotations, and non-trivial default-window logic, the description covers all important behavioral aspects. It also explains the configurable nature and response echo (windowApplied) without needing to describe the output schema since one exists. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. It defines from/to as an explicit date range, subject as a substring, and limit with default 50, hard max 200, clamping vs rejection of over-max, and rejection of <=0. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic detail beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'the default Outlook calendar folder', and it specifies the two search dimensions (date range and subject substring). It is distinguishable from siblings like calendar_get_event and calendar_get_notes, which imply retrieving specific items rather than searching across a folder.

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 gives strong usage context: at least one of from/to/subject is required, explains subject-only search window behavior, and describes how explicit from/to overrides the window. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead', but the usage conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide when this search tool is appropriate.

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