list_calendar_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, whether results are filtered by date or context, authentication requirements, or any side effects, so the agent cannot predict the tool's behavior beyond 'listing'.

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 description is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise: it repeats the tool name and provides no additional structure or qualifiers. It reads as a stub rather than a deliberate, information-dense summary.

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 tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to explain what events are listed, how date/context filters interact, and what the response looks like. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All four parameters already have descriptions in the input schema, including ISO date formats, the per_page default, and comma-separated context codes, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps; a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List calendar events' uses a clear verb and resource, so an agent knows it returns calendar events rather than creating or updating them. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no scope information (whose events, what time range), making it only vaguely informative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_calendar_event or other list tools. The context signals include no conditions or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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