List Calendar Events

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real operational facts: the required scope and the eventual-consistency hazard where an empty UID hit is a false negative after a recent create rather than a definitive absence. The awkward phrasing 'never authorises repeating it' conveys the anti-retry rule but reads obliquely.

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?

Three short sentences, mode of operation first, permission requirement second, the non-obvious consistency trap last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 no explanation, and annotations plus the stated scope cover safety. However, for a five-parameter paginated list tool the description never mentions pagination behavior, result ordering, or how the filters combine, leaving those to the schema alone.

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%, so the schema already explains uid, limit, cursor, mailbox_id and calendar_id, including the create-visibility caveat. The description's UID consistency note restates what the uid schema description already says, adding no new syntax or filter-combination detail beyond the schema.

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') plus a second explicit mode ('look up a caller-held UID') scoped to a selected mailbox. An agent can tell this is the enumeration tool rather than a mutation, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling qubrics_mailbox_get_calendar_event, which also retrieves a single event by UID.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('Requires calendar.read') and a pointed warning about the UID path: an empty immediate lookup does not resolve an uncertain create and must not be repeated. What is missing is routing guidance — when to list versus call get_calendar_event for a known UID, or get_calendar_event_changes for incremental sync.

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