calendar_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add one valuable behavioral fact: the first invocation triggers a user-facing calendar access prompt, which affects timing and UX expectations. It does not disclose what an event record contains, timezone handling, or behavior when access is denied.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope come first, and the permission caveat follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the access prompt but omits the shape of returned events and fallback behavior on denied permission. Adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent reasoning about results.

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 both parameters (days, from) are already documented with defaults and a max. The description adds only the framing 'between two dates', which the schema already covers, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: events from the phone's calendars within a date range. It implicitly contrasts with add_calendar_event (write) and list_scheduled (reminders/messages), but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 phrase 'between two dates'; there is no explicit 'use this when the user asks about their schedule' or exclusion versus add_calendar_event or list_scheduled. An agent can infer the read context but receives no routing guidance.

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