search_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior—'Recurring events are expanded into individual occurrences, so each occurrence has its own ID and can be updated or deleted independently'—which is critical for an agent to know. It also enumerates the return fields, compensating for the lack of an output schema. This goes beyond the name and provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 information-dense: a short purpose statement, a usage tip, a key behavioral note, and a return-details list. No sentences are redundant, and the most relevant facts appear early.

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?

For a search/list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential guidance: how to invoke, what behavior to expect (recurring expansion), and what results will contain. It does not spell out every default (those are in the schema) or mention ordering/result sorting, but for the tool's complexity it is sufficiently complete. The absence of annotations is compensated by this content.

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. The description adds a semantic distinction between passing 'query' versus only after/before to switch between search and list modes, which complements the schema descriptions. This helps the agent select the right combination of parameters for the user's intent.

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 opens with 'List or search calendar events,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like create_event/update_event/delete_event by focusing on listing/searching, and from list_calendars by targeting events. The recurring-event detail also clarifies a distinct behavior.

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 explicit guidance on when to use listing vs searching: 'To list a period... pass only after/before and omit query.' This instructs the agent how to select parameters based on intent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations, but the context is clear enough; the absence of exclusions is why it isn't a 5.

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