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 burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it: it does not say whether the call is read-only, whose calendar is returned, what time zone applies, or whether the result is empty when no events exist. Only the weak implication of "查看" (view) signals it is a read operation.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally fine. The brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, so it cannot earn a top score.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-shape information, and it supplies neither. For a one-parameter read tool the surface area is small, but an agent still lacks the date format and the identity of the calendar being read.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by stating the date format (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD), time zone, or whether relative expressions are accepted. "某日" only echoes the parameter name at a conceptual level.

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?

"查看某日日程" gives a verb (查看) and a resource (某日日程), so the operation is identifiable as a read of one day's calendar. However, it never says whose calendar or what a "日程" entry contains, and the phrase is so terse that it barely rises above a title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The sibling list (search_flights, get_weather, send_email, etc.) contains nothing comparable, so the agent gets no help at all in routing.

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