calendar_recurring

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond what the name implies. It does not state whether this is read-only, whether the list is sorted or paginated, what time window 'upcoming' spans, or how occurrences are represented. The parenthetical definition is the only real addition.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief scope note. Every clause earns its 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and several similarly named calendar siblings, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the return shape, sort order, how recurrence instances are counted against the limit, or how it differs from calendar_upcoming, leaving real gaps an agent would want closed.

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% for the single limit parameter, so the schema already documents default (30) and meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List recurring events') with a clarifying parenthetical defining the resource. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named siblings calendar_upcoming and calendar_week, which also deal with upcoming occurrences.

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 only implied. 'Shows upcoming occurrences' hints at a time-scoped view, but the description never says when to choose this over calendar_upcoming or calendar_week, nor whether it is a filtered variant. An agent must infer the selection condition.

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