list_calendars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and reveals a non-obvious implementation detail: it reads from PBI_Calendar table annotations because native TOM objects are absent. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not detail error behavior or 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The FLAG note is compact yet informative, adding value without verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear overview: purpose, source, and read-only nature. It hints at the return content (table, primary column, column groups). However, it does not fully explain return format or what happens if annotations are missing, leaving minor gaps.

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 description does not mention the sessionId parameter at all. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fails to compensate or add meaning. While sessionId is a common identifier, the low coverage and lack of explanation warrant a low score.

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 'List' and clearly specifies the resource: 'the model's calendar-based time-intelligence definitions'. It further details the contents (table, primary column, column groups), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that add or modify calendar intelligence.

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 implies this tool is for listing calendar-based time-intelligence definitions but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The technical FLAG provides contextual guidance about the data source, but not a direct comparison with sibling tools.

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