mcp-calendly

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it retrieves the 'authenticated' user's profile, which implies authentication is required, and clarifies the scope ('current user'), enhancing context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get the authenticated Calendly user's profile') with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose and usage. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return format (e.g., profile details), but the current description suffices for the low complexity.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by focusing on the output (user's profile), which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('authenticated Calendly user's profile'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_event' or 'list_event_types' which target different resources. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 usage by specifying 'authenticated Calendly user', suggesting it's for retrieving the current user's data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_invitees' or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or specific scenarios.

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