list_recurring_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: results are sorted by modification date (newest first). This goes beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. The description is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately adds a key detail about ordering. Every sentence is informative.

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's simplicity, one optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description is mostly complete. It could mention that it returns all definitions if no limit is set, but overall it covers the essentials well.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it omits context like default value (50) or hint about pagination. The schema already fully documents the limit parameter, so no deduction is needed.

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 'List' and the resource 'recurring event definitions', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events (general events) and list_event_instances (instances of recurring events). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it's for recurring definitions only, no direct guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer. Sibling tools like list_events exist but are not mentioned.

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