List Calendar Resources

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying the endpoint, the required auth token scope ('Token: location'), and the OAuth scope ('calendars/resources.readonly'), which helps an agent understand authorization requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior, endpoint, and auth context in a few short lines. Minor redundancy exists in the opening ('List Calendar Resources List calendar resources...'), but the extra tokens about scopes and endpoint are worthwhile, so overall it is appropriately sized.

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 listing endpoint with four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and auth but omits important contextual details: the meaning of limit/skip, response shape, possible defaults, and how this relates to the singular resource sibling. It is adequate but has clear gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does name resourceType and locationId as the listing criteria, but it gives no guidance on limit and skip, which are required but only described as generic numbers. Pagination semantics and default behavior are left entirely to inference.

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'), the resource ('calendar resources'), and the filtering dimensions ('by resource type and location ID'). It also includes the exact endpoint and is distinguishable from the sibling tool calendars_get_calendar_resource, which returns a single resource rather than listing resources.

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 context: call this when listing calendar resources filtered by resourceType and locationId. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be chosen instead, such as the singular calendars_get_calendar_resource for retrieving one resource.

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