get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the retrieval action and return format, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by detailed parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the 'time_max' explanation is slightly verbose). Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and specifies the return format, but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or error cases. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to guide usage in a broader context.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and usage (e.g., 'calendar_id' with 'primary' default, 'time_min' in RFC3339 format, reference to 'list_calendars' for IDs). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves a list of events from a specified Google Calendar within a given time range.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('events'), and scope ('Google Calendar', 'time range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'get_messages' that might also retrieve data, though the calendar focus is clear.

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 the calendar context and time range, and it mentions using 'list_calendars' to obtain calendar IDs, which provides some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_messages' for messages or 'list_calendars' for calendars), nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions beyond the parameters.

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