calendar_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it can return upcoming events or date-ranged events, supports text filtering, and enumerates the exact fields in the returned JSON list. This gives the agent a clear model of what the call will produce.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, and the second sentence details the return format. Every sentence contributes information not already obvious from the tool name or schema. There is no filler or 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?

Between the description, detailed schema, and read-only annotations, the tool is sufficiently specified for correct invocation. The return fields, filtering behavior, and time-bounds semantics are covered. A minor gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is not essential for a straightforward read-only listing operation.

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?

Although the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, the nested schema actually provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters, including defaults and RFC3339 format. The description adds extra meaning by framing query as text filtering and time_min/time_max as 'upcoming or date-ranged', which helps the agent map intent to parameters. It does not discuss calendar_id or max_results, but the schema already covers those clearly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List upcoming or date-ranged events on a calendar'. It also adds the optional text-filter capability, which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like calendar_list_calendars and calendar_create_event. Even without naming siblings, the purpose is unambiguous and scoped to events.

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 implies usage by describing the read-only listing behavior, and the sibling set makes the contrast with create/update/delete tools clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, such as for calendar metadata listing.

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