get_calendar_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 clearly documents that include_body is ignored when expand_recurring=True, and that expand_recurring returns fewer fields per event. This informs the agent of key trade-offs and behavioral nuances beyond a simple read operation.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is slightly verbose, particularly in the include_body and expand_recurring explanations, but every sentence adds value. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 output schema exists, so the description does not need to fully detail return values, but it provides a useful summary. The description covers the main behavioral aspects and parameter interactions. Missing details like timezone handling or pagination are minor given the tool's general purpose and the presence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so effectively: specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format for date parameters, clarifying the behavior of include_body and expand_recurring, and noting defaults and interactions between parameters. This adds significant meaning absent from the schema.

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 retrieves calendar events within a date range. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (calendar events), making the purpose unambiguous. Although not explicitly distinguishing from siblings, the focused scope of date range filtering sets it apart from related tools like find_free_time or get_meeting_stats.

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 usage guidance within parameter explanations (e.g., when to use include_body vs expand_recurring), but it does not explicitly address when to choose this tool over siblings like find_free_time, create_meeting, or update_meeting. With many sibling tools, this lack of selection criteria is a gap.

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