list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It provides defaults, ISO 8601 format expectations, and states that returned event dicts include 'calendar' and 'provider' fields, which adds useful behavior beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'List' strongly implies it.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded with the core action, followed by clearly grouped Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or 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?

The description covers all parameters, defaults, formats, and return information, which is sufficient for invoking the tool. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify behavior across providers or when to prefer alternative sibling tools, but the tool itself is low-complexity.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, and the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: calendar_name with an example and provider-prefix requirement, start with ISO 8601 format, and end with default behavior. This adds meaning that the input schema alone does not provide.

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 clearly states the tool lists calendar events and supports either a specified calendar or all calendars. It is distinct from siblings like list_calendars and get_event, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 parameter defaults but no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_event, list_calendars, or other siblings. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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