calendar_events_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it declares read-only, no side effects, no auth, and no rate limits, plus the half-open interval semantics and the return shape. It stops short of disclosing pagination/limit behavior or what a conflict record looks like, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety profile, then scope, then optional behavior, then the routing alternative. Four dense clauses that each earn their place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape `{events, count, conflicts?}` and covers the one non-obvious edge case (half-open boundary). Everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: the half-open window semantics for `from` (an event ending exactly at `from` is excluded) and the coupling of include_conflicts to both from/to. This is real added value over the already-documented 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (events) with precise scope (overlapping a window). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling calendar_events_conflicts, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 explicit context for optional filtering (entity/type) and a clear alternative: 'For conflicts alone, prefer calendar_events_conflicts.' It also tells the agent when to set include_conflicts. Nothing is left to inference.

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