get_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It confirms read semantics and multi-provider support, but never mentions auth requirements, whether it is strictly read-only, return shape, or pagination/limits on results.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope appear before the parenthetical provider note. It is tightly written, though its brevity comes partly from omitting information rather than from disciplined editing.

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 read tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It still leaves open the return fields, result limits, and how it differs from daily_briefing, so it is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 single parameter daysAhead has 100% schema description coverage including its default, so the schema already does the work. The description's 'upcoming' phrasing loosely aligns with the look-ahead concept but adds no syntax or boundary details beyond the 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?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (upcoming calendar events) plus the scope (user's connected calendar, Google or Outlook). It clearly separates itself from create_event, but does not address how it relates to daily_briefing, which plausibly surfaces the same calendar data.

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 word 'upcoming' hints at the retrieval window, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus daily_briefing or how it complements get_tasks. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternatives.

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