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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond that — it mentions the JSON array return type and that it lists events, but doesn't describe pagination behavior, default time range behavior, or ordering nuances. Given the strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description doesn't address behavior like default time windowing (today), how single_events interacts with order_by, or max_results limits — these are in the schema but their interplay isn't explained. For a 7-parameter list tool, it's adequate but not rich.

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 all 7 parameters are documented in the schema with default values and meanings. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema — it mentions time-range filtering and JSON array return but doesn't elaborate on any parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is fair given the complete schema coverage.

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+resource ('List calendar events') and scopes it to 'within a time range', which is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like list_calendars and get_event. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from check_availability or get_event, though the core list-over-range purpose is evident.

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 (listing events over a time range) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative references. Siblings like check_availability and get_event exist but aren't mentioned as alternatives. The description relies on the reader to infer appropriate usage from the purpose.

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