calendar_feed_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses both return variants (enabled vs { enabled: false }) and flags a genuine security trait — that the URL itself is a credential granting deadline access and must be shown only to the user. It stops short of stating permission requirements (though canSee* fields hint at them) or how often the lastFetchedAt is refreshed.

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, front-loaded with the resource definition before the field list and security caveat. The field enumeration is long but carries real information since no output schema exists; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return shape, the disabled-state shape, and the credential-handling warning — enough for correct invocation. Only the permission model behind canSeeExpiries/canSeeFiscal is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names the specific resource (the user's calendar subscription in the current organization) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from calendar_feed_enable/update/disable. The retrieval verb is only implied by the name rather than stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 statement of when to call this versus the sibling calendar_feed_enable, calendar_feed_update, or calendar_feed_disable tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The read-only nature is inferable only from the name and the fact that it returns data.

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