list_events

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact — all-day events are included and flagged all_day=true — but says nothing about ordering, result limits, pagination, or calendar access/permissions. Partial coverage for a read tool whose output schema already exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the scope constraint is front-loaded and the all-day behavior follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. However, for a 3-param, 0%-coverage read tool with no annotations, the description leaves the 'calendar' argument, result ordering, and any limit/pagination behavior unaddressed.

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% and all 3 params are required, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that start and end accept ISO datetimes or dates (2 of 3 params), but leaves the required 'calendar' parameter entirely unexplained — nothing says whether it takes an id, name, or index.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List events in a calendar') with an explicit scope (between start and end). It implies a date-range read distinct from search_events or get_event, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the date-range framing; the description never says when to prefer this over search_events, agenda, get_event, or find_free_time even though several siblings plausibly overlap. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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