List connected calendars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context beyond that, namely required scopes (bookings:read, luca:read) and the 'data sensitivity: redacted' handling. The 'Does not require idempotency' line simply restates the annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the remaining metadata (endpoint, scopes) is scannable. One line, 'Does not require idempotency,' is redundant with idempotentHint=true and could be dropped, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in scope/auth requirements and default-workspace behavior. Only the absence of sibling-routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: workspaceId/workspaceSlug are overrides of an environment-configured default workspace, which clarifies the default behavior an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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), a specific resource (calendars Luca reads for conflicts), and adds a distinguishing detail: which calendar it writes new events to. An agent can place it against siblings like luca_bookings_calendars_select/remove without opening a 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?

Usage is implied (a read-only listing of connected calendars) and it does note when to use the workspace override, but it never states when to prefer this over the related calendars_select/calendars_remove siblings or what prerequisites exist. Guidance is present but shallow.

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