get-calendar-list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the description's burden is lower, and it does add value: subscription-calendar exclusion, the meaning of default=true, and the fields returned. It doesn't mention ordering, pagination behavior beyond the examples, or any auth/permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then downstream usage, then two concrete examples and a one-line return summary. Every line carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned (totalCount plus id, name, type, default, role), what is excluded, and how the output feeds sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so page and size are already documented; the description adds the default page size implicitly through the '{} (first 20 calendars)' example and shows a realistic size=100 call. It still says nothing about what 'page' does in combination with size, so the added meaning is useful but partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the list of Dooray calendars') and immediately bounds the scope: only calendars the user can access, and subscription calendars are excluded. That scope statement, plus the note that default=true marks the user's own calendar, lets an agent distinguish this from get-calendar-event-list without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes downstream use: 'Use the returned calendar id for create-calendar-event, or to filter get-calendar-event-list,' naming both siblings and the condition that selects them. It also states what is NOT returned (subscription calendars), which is a real exclusion rather than implied guidance.

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