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 that it lists events with optional filters, which offers some context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by page_token), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'scheduled' specifically entails. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value but misses key operational details.

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 core purpose ('List scheduled Calendly events') and adds key detail ('with optional filters'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a listing tool with clear annotations and schema.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety, and schema fully describes inputs. The description is minimal but adequate for a read-only listing tool. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, or error handling, which could improve completeness for agent usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional filters', which aligns with parameters like status and time filters, but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter use or interactions.

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 ('scheduled Calendly events'), and mentions optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event' (single event) and 'list_event_types' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_invitees' (related but different). The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar listing tools.

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 for listing scheduled events with filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_event' for a single event or 'list_invitees' for participants. It mentions optional filters, which hints at context, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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