list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: recurring series expansion, calendar timezone interpretation, per-occurrence output, and sorting by start. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but 'list' implies safe operation. Minor gaps remain about error handling or pagination, but the description is transparent about core behavior.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and add necessary behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers scope, recurrence expansion, timezone handling, and sort order. It partially describes return shape ('one entry per occurrence') but lacks field-level details. Still, it is reasonably complete for a list operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies start and end as a range, but does not explain the optional 'calendar' parameter or date format. Thus it adds some meaning but is incomplete for the calendar param.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('event occurrences') with a clear scope ('in [start, end]'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on occurrences and recurrence expansion. It clearly differentiates from list_calendars and mutation tools.

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 implies usage for listing events in a date range, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides clear context for what it does, but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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