b24_calendar_list

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, but it only states the read action and the date filter. It does not disclose pagination via limit/start, the default type=user, the owner_id default, or anything about response shape. This is minimal disclosure for a list tool, with no safety, rate-limit, or side-effect context offered.

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?

A single front-loaded Spanish sentence states the verb, resource, scope, and filter with zero filler words. It is appropriately compact, though it could have added a second sentence on pagination or defaults without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return context — yet it covers neither response shape nor pagination. An agent can invoke it using schema defaults, but will not know what the results look like or how to page through them, which is a significant gap at this complexity level.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters (from, to, type, limit, start, owner_id) with examples, defaults, and bounds, putting the baseline at 3. The description only echoes the enum values (personal/group/company) and the date filter already present in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') with a clearly defined resource ('eventos de calendario personal, de grupo o de empresa') and names the date-filter capability, making the operation unambiguous. It clearly separates this tool from the many b24_* siblings by naming the calendar domain, but it never explicitly contrasts it with b24_calendar_create or other list tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 scope — personal/group/company calendar events with date filtering — implies when an agent should reach for this tool over sibling list tools such as b24_crm_list, b24_tasks_list, or b24_products_list. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., webhook_url), and no contrast with b24_calendar_create, leaving usage to inference.

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