calendar_search_events

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes that it returns a list of events with specific fields (UID, summary, start/end, location, status) and explains limit default. No side effects mentioned, but as a search tool, it's reasonably transparent.

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 for summary, then bulleted Args list, then returns, then usage hint. Every sentence earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters (3 required), no nested objects, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter explanations, return fields, and how to use results with other tools. Fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for all 5 parameters: calendar_id (from calendar_list_calendars), start/end (ISO 8601 example), query (optional text search), limit (default 50). This far exceeds the bare 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?

The description clearly states 'Search for events in a calendar within a date range' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like calendar_get_event (single event) and calendar_find_available_slots (available slots).

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use UIDs from results for calendar_get_event, calendar_update_event, or calendar_delete_event.' Implicitly indicates it's for searching before acting. Lacks explicit when-not guidance but is clear enough.

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