calendar_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that times are returned in UTC, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or any pagination limits. The description adds some value but lacks richer context.

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 that communicates both the primary action and a key output detail (UTC times). There is no redundancy or filler, so every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could benefit from stating the return structure. However, 'Search calendar events' implies a list of events, and the UTC note adds useful output context. With schema covering all parameters and a simple read-only operation, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description mentions keyword matching against titles and UTC times, which aligns with the query and time parameters but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search calendar events') and specifies the search scope ('by keyword in the title'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_get or calendar_list, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 use for keyword-based search but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like calendar_list or outlook_search. There is no guidance on when not to use it, so the usage context is only implied.

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