List calendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists calendars the account can access, but it does not mention whether it requires specific permissions, whether it fetches all calendars or only default ones, or what the return format is. There is no contradictory information, but the description is thin on behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It does not waste words, but it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness. However, given the simplicity of the tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least mention what the return value is (e.g., a list of calendar names and IDs). The lack of such detail leaves the agent uncertain about the output format and whether it needs to handle pagination or large result sets. Thus, the description is incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, 'account', which clearly states 'Account nickname to use.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully descriptive, the parameter semantics are adequately covered. The description does not need to add more as the schema is sufficient.

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 clear verb ('list') and resource ('calendars'), but it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like google_calendar_list_events. It is distinct enough that an agent can infer it lists calendars, not events, but it lacks explicit distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to list calendars versus events. The context implies it is for retrieving available calendars, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and siblings.

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