calendar_list_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context beyond the input schema: 'Returns up to 100 events' clarifies output limits, and 'Can filter by specific calendar' hints at optional filtering. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if no events are found, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but data-retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and output limit without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and output limit but misses contextual details like error scenarios, authentication needs, or how results are structured. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at return values (e.g., event details), but it only mentions quantity, leaving gaps in usability.

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, providing clear details for all 4 parameters (e.g., formats, defaults). The description adds minimal semantic value: 'within a date range' and 'filter by specific calendar' loosely map to parameters but don't enhance understanding beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly compensate or add new insights.

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: 'List calendar events within a date range. Can filter by specific calendar.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('calendar events'), and scope ('date range', 'filter by specific calendar'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'calendar_find_free_time' or 'reminders_list', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'calendar_find_free_time' for availability checks or 'reminders_list' for reminders instead of calendar events. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing calendar access, or when not to use it (e.g., for creating or updating events).

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