list_calendar

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, date-range constraints, or what the response contains. It only restates the endpoint and parameter names, adding minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks structure—no lead with the primary purpose, no distinction from siblings, and the parameter list is presented as a bare enumeration. It does not earn its place by providing actionable information.

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?

Given the tool has 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and many sibling list tools, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what data is returned, how parameters filter results, or how this tool differs from the ICS feed sibling. The agent cannot confidently decide when or how to invoke this tool.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It only lists the parameters as 'Query parameter' without any semantic detail. The agent cannot determine what 'start', 'end', 'unmonitored', or 'tags' do or what formats are expected, making the description nearly useless for parameter interpretation.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('Calendar') and includes the exact endpoint. It is not a tautology and the name aligns with the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'list_feed_v3_calendar_radarr_ics', which is also calendar-related, so it is not fully distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the ICS feed sibling or any conditions for filtering, nor does it explain the purpose of the parameters beyond being query parameters. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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