List Calendar View

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the required delegated Calendars.Read permission and the fact that recurring instances are expanded into the result set. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the auth requirement and returned-field list follow compactly. The Chinese intent list is long but serves a routing purpose. A small amount of redundancy exists between the returned-field enumeration and the schema, but overall it is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (subject, time, location, organizer, my response, attendees, cancellation state), which an agent needs to decide whether this tool answers a query. Combined with the stated permission requirement, it covers the four-parameter, two-required read tool adequately; only paging/limit behavior is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries its own documentation, including defaults for top and timeZone and ISO 8601 handling for the date bounds. The description's 'date-time range' phrasing only echoes that the two required parameters form the range, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (meetings and events) with an explicit scope (date-time range, including recurring instances) and enumerates the fields returned. It is the only calendar tool among the siblings, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, and an agent can tell immediately what the tool fetches.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool ('in a date-time range', including recurring instances) and reinforces it with example intents in Chinese. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but with a single calendar sibling set there is little to disambiguate, so this is strong-but-incomplete guidance.

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