get-event-occurrences

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the event must be recurring, permissions needed, or the response structure. The schema marks startDate and endDate as optional, yet the description implies they are needed for the date range, creating potential confusion.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly communicates the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return data format, behavior for non-recurring events, or handling of missing dates. More context is needed for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described (eventId, startDate, endDate). The description adds 'within a date range' but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'occurrences of a recurring event' with a clear scope 'within a date range'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-event or get-event-spaces, as no other tool directly retrieves event occurrences.

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 for recurring events within a date range but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get-event for non-recurring events or list-events for general listing. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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