Get appointments for a month

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that multi-day events appear in every overlapping month, that recurring series are expanded per occurrence with a shared series id, that Cozi-deleted occurrences are excluded and surfaced in skipped_days, and that read_only items come from subscribed calendars. It does not mention permissions, failure modes, or rate 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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a structured field list and then field-by-field explanations. The enumeration is long but each clause maps to a genuinely non-obvious return concept, so it earns most of its space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return shape, and it does so exhaustively — field list plus semantics for day/end_day, recurrence expansion, skipped_days, kind, read_only/source, and reminders. For a simple two-parameter read tool this leaves nothing material missing.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for year/month beyond the schema's own min/max constraints. The parameters are self-evident integers, so the lack of prose causes little harm, but the text spends its space on return fields rather than the inputs.

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 title and first sentence state a specific resource (appointments) and scope (one month), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It never names or contrasts the sibling search_calendar, so the boundary between a plain month fetch and a search is left to inference.

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?

Use is only implied by the 'one month' scoping — the description never says when to prefer this over search_calendar or today, nor any preconditions. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, but the month granularity makes the intended call site reasonably clear.

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