List calendar events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavioral context: location and attendee emails appear only when include_contact_details is set, and video-call links, host links and passwords are never returned. That is meaningful disclosure of redaction policy beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about pagination, limits or ordering.

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 dense sentence that front-loads scope and returned data, then the caveats. Every clause carries information, though the grammar is slightly broken around 'the location (often an address) and attendee emails only with include_contact_details', which costs a little readability.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return content (title, times, attendees and their responses, plus the conditional contact fields) and the never-returned fields. It is essentially complete for a 4-parameter read tool; only ordering/pagination detail is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining the consequence of include_contact_details (contact fields appear/redaction lifts) and by framing from/to as a between-two-dates window. It adds semantic value the schema's terse field notes only partially convey.

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?

Names a specific resource (calendar events) and scopes it precisely to one workspace and a date window, then enumerates the main returned fields (title, times, attendees and responses). No sibling tool covers calendars, so no differentiation is required; the only deduction is that the sentence is a noun fragment rather than a stated verb+resource.

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 date-range and workspace scoping imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. For a read-only listing tool with no competing calendar sibling this is adequate but thin.

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