List Calendar View

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries this burden. It adds useful behavioral details: 'Requires delegated Calendars.Read' and expansion of 'single and recurring event instances.' However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or explicitly confirm there are no side effects beyond the verb 'List.'

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear core statement, a required permission, and a brief Chinese intent list. Every part earns its place, and the Chinese intents add useful multilingual guidance without bloating the text.

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 simple, read-only list operation with full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete: it states purpose, scope, and permission. The lack of an output schema and absence of explicit return-shape/pagination details create minor gaps, but not enough to significantly hinder an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including formats and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states 'List single and recurring event instances in an explicit date-time range,' which uses a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calendar_list_events or calendar_list_event_instances by emphasizing both recurrence expansion and explicit range.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when listing event instances across an explicit date-time range. It also adds an auth prerequisite ('Requires delegated Calendars.Read'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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