list_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description carries a lower burden. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating 'Read' and 'GET', and does not mention default date ranges, filtering behavior, or return characteristics. There is no contradiction with 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 short and front-loads the endpoint, but the Args block repeats all seven parameter names already present in the input schema, with only the low-value phrase 'Query parameter' added. It is not verbose enough to be penalized heavily, yet some lines do not earn their place.

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?

Even with annotations and an output schema, the description lacks essential context for correct invocation: it does not explain the start/end date range semantics, tag syntax, or the meaning of the include_* flags relative to other calendar endpoints. For a seven-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is a notable gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the seven parameters. It only labels each as 'Query parameter', adding minimal information about placement but no semantics about formats, meanings, or relationships. This is insufficient compensation for completely undocumented parameters.

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 and resource: 'Read Calendar' with the endpoint 'GET /api/v3/calendar'. This is not a tautology and is understandable, but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like get_calendar_by_id or list_feed_v3_calendar_sonarr_ics.

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. The description simply lists the endpoint and parameters without stating context, prerequisites, or comparing against sibling calendar/list tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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