List Calendars

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies the scope ('accessible to the user'), the return format (IDs, names, access roles), and the response_format parameter options. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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: a single clear purpose statement, a minimal Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure. No output schema is present, but the Returns section explains the output. Minor gaps (e.g., pagination or error behavior) are not significant for this tool's simplicity.

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% and the schema already documents response_format with its enum, default, and meaning. The description repeats this information and adds the default value, but provides no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 all calendars accessible to the user.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the return details (IDs, names, access roles) further clarify scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like calendar_list_events, which lists events rather than calendars.

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 ('when you need the list of accessible calendars') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools are largely different resources (drive, docs, sheets), so the context is clear, but no direct guidance is given.

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