list_calendly_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the operation is scoped to the authenticated Calendly user, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default count, rate limits, or output shape; with annotations carrying the main behavioral burden, this is an adequate 3.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no repeated annotation content or filler. Its brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere, but as a conciseness-and-structure measure it is efficient and well-formed.

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 seven-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the schema supplies most filter definitions, but the description omits pagination/default count guidance, filtering expectations, and any indication of return shape. The agent can infer the basics from the schema, but the description does not fully carry its share of context.

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 71%, with sort, status, user_uri, max_start_time, and min_start_time described, but count and api_key undescribed. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the scope phrase and does not compensate for the missing count/api_key semantics or explain defaults, date-range behavior, or sort syntax.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List scheduled events,' scoped to the authenticated Calendly user. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_calendly_event or list_calendly_invitees.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The listing use case is only implied by the verb 'List,' leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to get_calendly_event or other Calendly tools.

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