calendar_list_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It discloses only the calendar_id default; it says nothing about pagination via page_token, max_results default, recurring-event expansion, account/auth requirements, or the read-only nature of the operation.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for readability, though arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: pagination, default result limits, recurring-event behavior, and the account-selection semantics. It is far from complete enough to call the tool correctly without opening the schema.

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 63%, with the undocumented params (page_token, calendar_id, max_results) left ambiguous in the schema. The description usefully supplies the calendar_id default of 'primary', which the schema lacks, but adds nothing for the other gaps, so it stays at baseline.

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 and resource ("List events on a calendar") plus a scoping constraint ("in a time window"), which cleanly separates it from calendar_get_event. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives like calendar_get_event for a single event or calendar_list_calendars for discovery. Only a scoping hint ("time window") implies usage, leaving an agent to infer routing.

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