list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral detail: recurring events are expanded into occurrences, the range is inclusive, and a bare end date covers the entire day. It stops short of disclosing pagination limits, sort order, or timezone handling, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavioral notes, then an Args block. Minor redundancy where value formats are listed in prose and then repeated in the Args section, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers formats, recurrence expansion, and day-boundary semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. Gaps around timezone, result ordering, and any result limits keep it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and the Args block documents all three parameters: start and end with concrete format examples ('today', ISO dates, timestamps) and include_description with its default. It adds real meaning over the bare schema types, though end only gets one example and formats could be tied to parameters more precisely.

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 (List) and resource (calendar events) with an explicit scope ('between two dates/times, inclusive'), which distinguishes it from list_today and list_upcoming. It does not explicitly name those siblings or search_events, so it falls short of a 5, but the range-based framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by the date-range framing (use when you need an arbitrary window), and accepted value formats are clarified. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_today, list_upcoming, or search_events, and no exclusions are stated.

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