list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: recurring events are expanded into instances and results are ordered by start time. It omits pagination behavior, permission/scope requirements, timezone handling, and whether cancelled events appear.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the behavioral notes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and required-parameter semantics are covered. However, for a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the three optional parameters are entirely undocumented, which is a meaningful gap an agent will hit in practice.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the format of time_min/time_max ('RFC 3339', with an example). The other three parameters — query, calendar_id (default 'primary'), and max_results (default 50) — get no mention at all, leaving search-vs-list semantics and pagination unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List calendar events') plus a scope constraint ('between two RFC 3339 times'), which cleanly separates it from the single-record sibling get_event.

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?

Usage is only implied by the time-range framing; the description never says when to prefer this over get_event or how it relates to list_calendars, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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