list_event_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only the read-only nature and date-range scope; it does not disclose return shape, pagination, date inclusivity, timezone handling, or behavior for non-recurring events.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning.

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 straightforward list operation the sentence names the action, resource, and temporal bounds matching all three required parameters. It is adequate, but the lack of date format guidance and absence of an output schema leaves an agent to infer details.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the sentence adds meaning by identifying event_id as a recurring event and start_date/end_date as the range. It still omits value formats (e.g., ISO date vs date-time) and inclusiveness, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Description clearly specifies a read operation ('List') on a distinct resource ('instances of a recurring event') bounded by a date range. It is easy to tell apart from broader calendar list tools, though it does not name an alternative sibling.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you have a recurring event_id and need its occurrences within start_date/end_date. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from list_events_in_range or list_upcoming_events.

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