list_calendar_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 mentions the tool lists events within a date range and returns a list, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by sections for Args, Returns, and an Example. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying parameter formats and defaults. Minor improvements could include briefer phrasing, but it's efficient overall.

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 the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers parameters thoroughly and states the return type. However, it lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling, which is notable since no annotations are provided.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, format (ISO format for dates), and default values (today, 30 days from now, 50 for limit). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all three parameters.

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 calendar events within a date range.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('calendar events'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_emails' or 'create_calendar_event', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'create_calendar_event' for adding events or 'search_emails' for email-related queries) or specify contexts like viewing upcoming events versus historical data. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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