mcp-calendly

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description implies listing invitees, but does not disclose details like pagination behavior (though hinted by 'page_token' in schema), rate limits, or authentication needs, offering only basic operational intent.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and good schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, which could enhance agent understanding, though annotations cover safety aspects.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters (event_uuid, count, page_token). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as how 'event_uuid' is obtained or the implications of pagination, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 action ('List') and resource ('invitees for a scheduled event'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_event' or 'list_scheduled_events', which might also involve event-related data retrieval, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is the primary method for retrieving invitee information or if other tools like 'get_event' might include invitee data, leaving usage context 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.