list-calendars

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation and the scope ('all connected calendars for the authenticated user') is stated. However, it does not describe the return shape, pagination, ordering, or any potential output variants, which would matter because there is no output schema.

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 no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is nothing unnecessary and nothing ambiguous enough to warrant more verbs.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, this is nearly complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the user context. The only gap is the absence of explicit return-value information, which is mitigated by the verb 'List' implying a collection of calendar objects. Overall, an agent can invoke it corrrectly with confidence.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage is trivially satisfied by an empty properties object. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to document parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is required.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('connected calendars'), scoped to 'the authenticated user'. Since sibling tools operate on schedules, bookings, event types, and out-of-office entries, this unambiguously identifies the calendar-listing tool.

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 makes the use case explicit: it lists all connected calendars for the authenticated user. It does not name alternative tools, but none of the siblings cover the same resource, and with zero parameters no additional routing guidance is necessary. This is clear context without exclusions.

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