calendar_list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral context: recurrences are expanded (so recurring instances appear individually) and dates accept ISO dates or datetimes. It omits the read-only safety profile, the 200-event default cap and whether results are truncated or paginated, which matters for a listing tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and its range constraint, with the recurrence and filter notes trailing. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical example is slightly bulky for the value it adds.

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 needn't be described, and the essential call contract (required range, optional filter, recurrence expansion) is covered. The missing pieces are the limit/pagination behavior and any statement of read-only semantics, which for a no-annotation tool leaves a real gap.

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 compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: start/end get accepted formats with concrete examples, and calendar_name is identified as an optional filter. The `limit` parameter (default 200) is never mentioned, leaving its truncation semantics undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List events") plus the bounding dimension ("between start and end"), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling mutators calendar_create_event, calendar_update_event and calendar_delete_event. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the read-vs-write split is unambiguous.

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 implied by the required date range and the optional calendar filter, so an agent can infer the intended call shape. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, when not to, or what to do when the range is large — no alternative is named despite four calendar siblings existing.

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