Google Calendar MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the search scope (titles, descriptions, locations) and time range parameters, but lacks critical behavioral details such as permission requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no results are found. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise sentences that add necessary context without waste. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying search scope and time parameters efficiently.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a search tool. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, result format, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate but has clear gaps that could hinder effective agent usage.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the search fields and time range context, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search calendar events by text query' with specific details about what fields are searched (titles, descriptions, locations). It distinguishes from siblings like calendar_list_events by emphasizing text-based search rather than simple listing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Can search both past and future events by specifying days_back and days_ahead,' which suggests when to use this tool over simpler listing tools. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this versus siblings like calendar_list_events or calendar_daily_agenda, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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