get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so 'Read-only. Does not create or delete events.' mostly restates them. The description nonetheless adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the Europe/Berlin timezone, the YYYY-MM-DD format, the default 14-day window, and the required calendar permission.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then format/timezone, then defaults, then permissions, then safety. Nothing is padded, and each sentence delivers a distinct fact.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers format, defaults, permission, and safety. It does not describe the shape of returned events or pagination, which is the remaining gap, though the core calling information is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: date format, timezone, and the default range when dates are omitted. It stops short of stating boundary inclusivity (whether from/to are inclusive) or ordering expectations, which would have earned a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read wbservicesbasic.kalender and filter events to a date range.' That is unambiguous about what is fetched and that a filter is applied. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_course_dates, so it lands just 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?

It gives useful calling context — default window of today through 14 days and the required 'calendar right' — which implies when the tool applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over other date/event-oriented siblings, so the guidance is 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.