Analyze calendar load

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the aggregation behavior (grouping by day, counting events, summing minutes). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-ordered: purpose sentence, usage sentence, then parameter list. No redundant filler, though the parameter block is somewhat verbose for what the schema already encodes.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, use case, and all parameters, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Slightly more detail on aggregation granularity could help, but nothing essential 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 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters (time_min, time_max, calendar_id, account) in the Args section, including the note that account defaults to the default and references the 'calendar-mcp accounts' command for discovery.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Summarise how loaded each day is') with concrete output details (event count, total scheduled minutes). It also differentiates from siblings by noting it answers the busyness question 'without listing every event', which distinguishes it from find_events.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use this to answer "how busy is my week" without listing every event.' This communicates the intended use case well, though it stops short of naming explicit alternatives or stating when NOT to use it.

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