list_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the parameter format (Unix timestamps) already present in the schema, and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as expected output, pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether it lists events from all calendars. This is a significant gap for a read operation.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, no redundant phrases, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter list operation.

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?

For a simple list tool with two well-defined parameters, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not specify what information is returned for each event (e.g., IDs, titles, full details) and does not clarify scope like calendars included. Since there is no output schema, these details matter for the agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, documenting both parameters ('start' and 'end') and their types/descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that; it merely repeats the timestamp detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents parameters.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists calendar events within a time range.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_details or create_event by emphasizing the time-range listing scope. The additional note about Unix timestamps is directly relevant to usage.

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 usage by specifying a time range, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event_details or list_channels_having_events. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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