Calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default (the signed-in user's calendars) which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination (limit/page_token are present in the schema) or result size constraints.

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?

A single sentence with the core resource and scoping constraint front-loaded, followed by the default behavior. No wasted words, though the compression comes partly at the cost of the undocumented parameters.

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 list tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimum-viable: it explains period and default scope but omits pagination and search (query) semantics that an agent needs to call it correctly across pages.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that from/to define the period and that matter_id and calendar_id act as optional filters, adding meaning to 4 of 7 parameters, but leaves limit, query, and page_token entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists calendar entries') plus its scope (a from–to period, optionally filtered by matter or calendar). This distinguishes it from clio_calendars_list (which lists calendars, not entries) and from clio_calendar_entry_create/update, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 via the period requirement and the optional matter/calendar filters, and states the default scope, but it never says when to prefer this over clio_calendars_list or how to scope by user/calendar recovered from another tool. Usage is inferable, not explicit, and no exclusions are given.

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