getEvents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation and the time-range clause provides useful scoping, but the description omits any mention of auth needs, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid calendar IDs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and optional scope.

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 straightforward list operation with a fully described schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement about auth requirements and return shape, but the sibling set and parameter documentation provide enough context to avoid gross misuse.

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?

All five parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting the time range is optional, which is already encoded by the nullable timeMin/timeMax fields.

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 states the exact action ('List'), the resource ('events from a Google Calendar'), and the optional time-range scope. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling mutation tools (createEvent, updateEvent, deleteEvent) and authenticate.

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 this is the read/query tool for calendar events, and the sibling names make the contrast obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or calendar ownership.

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