calendar_get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers only minimal context: the operation is read-only ("Get events") and mentions RFC3339 for time range inputs. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination behavior, default calendar handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for transparent expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then adds key filtering details. There is no redundancy or unnecessary prose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 5 optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not mention that all parameters are optional, what the default calendar is, how max_results behaves, or any output-related details (despite an output schema existing). The context is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of time_min/time_max (time range) and query (text search), but entirely omits calendar_id and max_results. These two parameters have defaults but their purpose is not clarified, leaving meaningful gaps in understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: "Get calendar events." It also mentions filtering by time range (RFC3339) and text search, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_list_calendars or calendar_create_event. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need calendar events with optional filters) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer. It lacks direct comparisons to alternatives like calendar_freebusy or calendar_list_recurring_instances, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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