get_week_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by saying 'Get' (vs mutate), and clarifies scope ('from all accounts', 'next N days'). However, it doesn't mention return format, pagination, sorting, or whether past/today events are included. For a read-only lookup with an output schema present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 accurate sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place: verb, resource, time scope, and account scope all conveyed efficiently. Excellent front-loading of the key operation.

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, single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, this description is adequate. It covers what's returned (events), the time scope, and the account scope. Minor gap: it doesn't note any cross-cutting behavior like canceled/declined events filtering or whether it includes all-day events, but given the simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

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% - the single 'days' parameter is documented in the schema ('Number of days to look ahead, default 7'). The description implicitly references it via 'next N days' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting for the one 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 states 'Get calendar events for the next N days from all accounts' - a clear verb (Get) + resource (calendar events) + scope (next N days, all accounts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_today_events and get_upcoming_events by specifying 'from all accounts' and 'next N days' lookahead, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like get_today_events, get_upcoming_events, and get_event_details likely overlap, but the description does not clarify when this tool should be preferred over them. The only implicit context is the 'next N days' lookahead scope, which is not presented as a differentiator.

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