get_calendar_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully structured. The description adds the return shape ("titles, times, and details"), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or multi-calendar aggregation behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by compact example queries and one return-format line. Every element earns its place, though the three examples are somewhat redundant with each other.

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 0 required params, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the only gap the description needed to fill was the return value, which it does. Further detail on multi-calendar results or event volume would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents date formats, keywords like 'today'/'tomorrow', and the dateEnd default. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema is doing all the work.

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 and resource ("Get calendar events from Skylight"), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings like create_calendar_event and delete_calendar_event. It doesn't explicitly separate it from aggregation siblings such as get_source_calendars or get_week_overview, so it stops short of a 5.

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 example questions ("What's on my calendar today?", "Are there any events on Friday?") give concrete triggers that map queries to this tool. However, it never names an alternative or exclusion — an agent can't tell when to prefer get_week_overview or find_free_slots over this, so it misses the top band.

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