list_events

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds some context by listing what is included (planned workouts, notes, race events) and the date range constraint. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, ordering, or return format. This is similar to the TDQS 4.3 example where annotations cover safety and the description adds date-range scoping, warranting a 3.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context, the third points to an alternative, and the Args section lists parameters succinctly. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff or 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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from get_event. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are not required given the output schema likely documents return values. A small gap remains because it does not explicitly state that results are returned as a list, but overall it is adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema (e.g., 'Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format'). The description's Args section merely repeats parameter names and types, adding no extra semantic value. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'List calendar events and planned workouts between dates.' This uses a specific verb (List), specifies the resource (calendar events and planned workouts), and scopes it by date range. It also differentiates from the sibling get_event by explicitly mentioning that fetching details of a specific planned event should use get_event.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when browsing planned workouts, notes, or race events on the calendar. To fetch details of a specific planned event, use get_event.' It tells the agent when to choose this tool and names the alternative for a more specific task, clearly distinguishing from a sibling tool.

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