list_calendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that results are limited to calendars visible to the authorized account. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, whether secondary/holiday calendars are included, or what the response looks like — a notable gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy — nothing about the call's behavior is established.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without pagination behavior, default page size, or result shape. The account-scoping clause is the only substantive context provided.

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 50%: page_token is documented in the schema while max_results has only bound constraints and no meaning. The description does not compensate for that gap and never mentions either parameter, so an agent gets no help on what max_results defaults to or how paging should be handled.

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 the Google calendars') plus a scope qualifier ('visible to the authorized account'). It is clearly distinct from the email/file/event siblings, though it never names a sibling (e.g., list_events) to disambiguate calendar-level vs event-level listing.

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 call this versus list_events or get_event, no prerequisites, and no note on whether it is a discovery step before other calendar operations. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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