get_recurring

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (list), mentions optional filtering and limit, and defines 'upcoming' implicitly. However, it doesn't clarify if it returns only the next occurrence or all future occurrences, nor does it mention any behavioral traits like time range constraints. The presence of an output schema slightly mitigates this.

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 concise: two sentences and a short args list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value 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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema present), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter usage. It lacks an explicit definition of 'recurring' but is otherwise complete for a list tool.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: calendar is an optional filter with a hint to use get_calendars, and limit is the maximum results with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'upcoming recurring events', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'recurring', which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 some context ('Useful for understanding the regular schedule') and suggests using get_calendars for calendar names, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_upcoming or get_events_by_calendar.

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