Rechercher des calendriers

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

The description introduces inaccurate behavioral details: it states pageSize has a default of 20 and max of 100, whereas the schema specifies default 30 and max 500. This could mislead an agent about response limits. It also omits the 'fields' projection parameter. While annotations cover read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds misleading pagination info, which is a transparency failure.

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 short, well-structured with an overview, args list, and returns statement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes redundant parameter details that conflict with the schema, which slightly reduces efficiency, but the overall format remains concise.

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?

Given that the schema provides full parameter descriptions and an output schema exists, the description could be minimal, but it still misses the 'fields' parameter and provides incorrect pagination bounds. This creates an incomplete and slightly inconsistent picture, though the core functionality is adequately conveyed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description does not add meaningful value beyond the schema. It repeats keywords and page defaults mostly as-is, but gives conflicting pageSize limits and completely omits the 'fields' parameter. The description's incorrect parameter metadata actively harms understanding rather than clarifying it.

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 clearly states the tool searches calendars in BoondManager by keywords with pagination, and specifies it returns a list with IDs, names, and main details. This is a distinct search operation compared to the sibling tool boond_calendars_get, which retrieves a single calendar.

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 implies this tool is for keyword-based searches and mentions pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus boond_calendars_get or any other alternative. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and generic search behavior.

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