Calendar Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing default exclusions (browsing noise excluded, archived excluded via include_archived flag), the range shortcut semantics (calendar year vs trailing), and the API key requirement plus cost. These behaviors go beyond the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences pack significant behavioral detail: authentication scope, date preferences, shortcut semantics, default exclusions, cost, and API key requirement. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the key operational aspects: date format, defaults, cost, auth, and filtering. It lacks explicit pagination guidance for the cursor parameter, which would matter for large result sets, but the overall tool complexity is handled well.

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 only 56%, so the description carries partial burden. It adds meaning for 'from' (preferred over range), 'range' shortcuts (calendar year clarification), and 'include_browsing' default. However, it doesn't explain 'cursor' pagination or 'kinds' acceptable values beyond the example in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving calendar events for the authenticated user, with specific filtering behavior. It clearly separates this from add/update/delete event siblings by using 'get' and specifying read semantics, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative like get_context_pack or get_memories that might overlap.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: prefer explicit from/to dates, suggests shortcut range values, and explains that browsing noise is excluded by default. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the instruction to prefer explicit dates and the default exclusions give clear operational context.

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