list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are merged across all calendars, sorted by start, and recurring events are expanded into occurrences. It stops short of describing pagination, result limits, or return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope and behavior, and each sentence contributes distinct information (scope, recurrence expansion, defaults). 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?

A read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a clear behavioral summary; there is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain result shape or limits, but nothing critical to forming a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters (start, end, accounts, calendars) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description only reinforces the default time window and adds nothing about the accounts/calendars filters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (events) and scope (time range, merged across all calendars, sorted by start) plus the recurrence-expansion behavior, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_events, so it falls short of a 5.

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 stated default window (today through the next 7 days) implies when this is the convenient call, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to search_events or find_free_time as alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names.

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