list_calendar_events

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

The description indicates a read-only operation via 'Maps to GET /calendars/events' and '[tier: readonly-owner]', but since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences and a tag with no redundant information. Every part serves a purpose.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has 4 parameters, the description is sparse. It does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what happens when no date range is provided, which is important 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?

The description adds minimal parameter understanding beyond the schema. While it mentions 'within a date range', it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'userId' or 'calendarId', and the schema coverage is only 50% (descriptions for startTime and endTime only).

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 it lists calendar events (appointments and blocked slots) within a date range, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_free_slots or get_appointment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context that would help the agent choose this tool over siblings.

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