get_events

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the POST endpoint, epoch time units, the provider default, and the response ordering rule. It complements rather than contradicts the annotations, though it does not mention authorization or rate-limit 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 description is tightly structured in three sentences: what it does, when to call it, and key parameter/return details. No word is wasted, and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the core requirements: endpoint, preconditions, parameter semantics, and return-order behavior. It lacks explicit pagination or rate-limit guidance, but this is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone does nothing, so the description must carry the weight. It explains that queries_json is a JSON array, notes the default provider, and defines timeMin/timeMax as ms epoch, adding real meaning beyond the lone 'Queries Json' field. The exact internal structure of each query object is still somewhat underspecified.

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 action ('Fetch events') and the scope ('in a time window for specific calendars'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is distinguishable from singular get_event by the plural 'events' and 'time window', though it does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation.

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 instruction 'Call after you know provider/accountId/calendarId' gives a clear precondition and tells the agent not to invoke this tool before those identifiers are known. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives like search_events or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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