get_upcoming_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't clarify whether results are sorted, whether this includes past events if hours is negative, how multiple accounts' results are combined, or whether it's a read-only operation (which the name implies but is unverified). Minimal behavioral information beyond the raw statement.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose. Could be considered slightly under-specified rather than concise, but given the minimal surface area (one optional parameter, output schema present), the length is appropriate and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema and a single optional parameter with 100% coverage, which reduces the need for extensive description. However, given the presence of close siblings (get_today_events, get_week_events) in the same domain, some clarifying note on default scope (e.g., 24h look-ahead) and aggregation behavior would make it complete. Adequate but with room to distinguish from siblings.

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% — the single 'hours' parameter is fully described in the schema ('Hours to look ahead (default: 24)'). The description itself doesn't reference the parameter, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic detail beyond schema is provided, but none is strictly needed for a single fully-documented parameter.

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 'Get upcoming calendar events from all accounts' uses a specific verb (get) with a clear resource (upcoming calendar events) and a notable scope qualifier ('from all accounts'). It's clear in intent, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the related siblings like get_today_events or get_week_events, which are close variations sharing the same domain.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_today_events, get_week_events, or get_my_tasks. It doesn't mention that it aggregates across accounts or when that multi-account scope would be preferred, nor does it note any exclusions. Context is implied by the name and description but no explicit decision guidance is provided.

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