calendar_agenda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating the data is 'synthetic' and 'bounded', which informs the agent that results are simulated and limited to the given range. This goes beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning—'read', 'bounded', 'synthetic', 'calendar agenda', 'configured identity'—with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks a note on the return format, but given the synthetic nature and the parameters, an agent can reasonably infer what to expect. The absence of an output schema means a brief mention of what the agenda contains could improve it, but it is not critically 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 100% (start_datetime, end_datetime, timezone all have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond saying 'bounded', which is already implied by the start/end fields. The description neither compensates for any gaps nor enhances the schema details.

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 specifies a precise verb (read), a clear resource (calendar agenda), and adds qualifiers (bounded, synthetic, configured identity) that make the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which all target different domains (mail, teams, sharepoint, powerplatform).

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?

While there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, the description clearly conveys that this is a read-only operation for fetching a calendar agenda within a range. Since no sibling tools are calendar-related, the usage context is clear from the name and description, though a note on when to use it (e.g., 'use to retrieve agenda items') would be slightly stronger.

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