List calendar tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds context about the due-date scoping and the calendar-view purpose. It does not mention potential edge cases like timezone handling or pagination, but the bar is lower given the annotations; the description sufficiently supplements them without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence earns its place by providing a crucial differentiation from a sibling tool. There is zero redundancy; every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple list tool with 3 parameters (2 required), good annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its unique scope, and its relationship to a sibling. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by linking the date range to the concept of 'due date' – not just any date – and clarifies that the range applies to a calendar view. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'ISO date range start/end inclusive' and helps the agent map 'from'/'to' to the actual filtering intent.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('tasks') and a precise scope ('with a due date inside a date range, for a calendar view'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_tasks' by highlighting the due date scoping, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'Unlike list_tasks, this is scoped by due date range rather than status/search filters.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over its sibling (when the primary need is due-date-based filtering) and clarifies the intended use case ('for a calendar view').

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