Find events

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld warnings, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond these: recurrence expansion, inclusive/exclusive window semantics, timezone fallback behavior, and query scope over title, description, location, and attendees. This gives the agent accurate expectations about how results are produced without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes necessary information; there is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults in ways that waste tokens. The timezone note and inclusive/exclusive distinctions are high-value details.

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 moderate complexity — six optional parameters, recurrence expansion, timezone semantics — the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: calendar selection, query fields, narrowing strategy, and account handling. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable, and no critical behavioral gap remains.

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 carries the full burden, and it delivers: each of the six parameters is explained with meaningful details such as 'primary' meaning the user's calendar, time_min inclusivity with ISO 8601 and timezone handling, time_max exclusivity, query fields searched, max_results default, and account selection. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('a calendar for events'), and a distinctive behavior ('expanding recurring series into instances'). The 'Use this before any tool that needs an event_id' line further anchors its role as the lookup tool among many event-related siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('before any tool that needs an event_id') and gives a concrete usage tip ('Narrow the window with time_min/time_max rather than raising max_results'). It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state explicit 'do not use when...' conditions, but the primary selection context is clear.

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