List calendar events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the default date range (today and next 2 weeks) and that workout steps are included as text, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions detected.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by content types, default range, and usage. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, the default time window, and a suggested use case. It does not explain return structure (covered by output schema) or parameter details (covered by schema). The only minor gap is explicit guidance on alternative tools, but that is handled in usage guidelines.

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 documents all four parameters including defaults for oldest and newest. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only hinting at include_descriptions via 'workout steps as text.' This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage; the description does not meaningfully compensate for any gaps.

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 lists calendar entries and enumerates the specific types (workouts, races, notes, holidays, sickness, injuries), making the resource and scope unambiguous. It also implies a distinction from activity listing by focusing on planned vs. completed activities, helping an agent differentiate it from list_activities.

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 a clear context: 'Use it to see what is planned or to compare the plan with completed activities.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use list_activities for completed activities' or 'use get_event for a single event.' Thus it stops short of full explicitness.

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