List Events

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a safe read operation. It adds value by mentioning pagination support (limit/offset) and the optional calendar filter. It does not describe potential performance implications or edge cases like empty results, but with the existing annotations this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids fluff and repeats no structural details. Every clause is informative: the date range requirement, the optional filter, and pagination support are all mentioned without redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential usage constraints (required date range, optional calendar, pagination) and is adequate for a read-only listing tool with strong annotations. It could mention inclusive/exclusive date boundaries or timezone handling, but these are minor and not critical.

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 the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description reinforces that startDate and endDate are required and mentions the optional calendar filter and pagination, but adds little beyond the schema. It does highlight the required fields, which is helpful, but the incremental value is marginal.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List events within a date range.' It specifies the resource (events) and the core scope (date range), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes or list_reminders. The verb 'list' is direct and unambiguous.

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 implicit usage guidance by stating required parameters (startDate and endDate) and optional filters (calendar) and pagination. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like today_events, nor does it describe when not to use it. It could benefit from naming a specific alternative for narrower queries.

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