list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that events are listed but does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, timezone handling, or behavior when start/end are omitted. The read-only nature is only inferred from the word 'list', not explicitly stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant word. It states the action and scope efficiently, earning its place without any padding.

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 simple list tool with two well-documented parameters, the description plus schema covers the core function. However, the absence of an output schema and any details about return structure, pagination, or default behavior when arguments are omitted leaves some ambiguity, making it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and format (YYYY-MM-DD), so the description adds little beyond the 'date range' framing. It does not clarify whether the range is inclusive/exclusive or whether both parameters are required, which the schema also leaves open (required is 0).

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 'List' with a clear resource 'calendar events' and a scoping constraint 'within a date range'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_event', which likely retrieves a single event by ID.

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 phrase 'within a date range' implies the tool is for fetching multiple events over a period, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_event. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making the guidance merely implied rather than explicit.

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