list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden: it usefully discloses two defaults (calendar and date window), which is real behavioral value. However it says nothing about pagination despite a page_token parameter, nothing about result ordering or shape, and nothing about rate limits or permissions.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the default behavior. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 six-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the two important defaults. It stops short on pagination workflow and how to page through large ranges, which is the one thing an agent still has to infer.

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 83%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema already documents start, end, search, page_token, and calendar_id. The only parameter the schema leaves bare is max_results, and the description doesn't fill that gap; the calendar default it mentions merely restates calendar_id's schema text.

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 calendar events') plus a scope ('in a time range'), so the agent can tell it apart from get_event, which singles out one event. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied by the plural 'list' rather than stated.

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 default behavior ('primary calendar and the next seven days') hints at typical usage, but nothing says when to prefer this over get_event or list_calendars, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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