Get Calendar Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP method and the calendars/events.readonly scope, which is useful auth context beyond the annotations, but it does not reveal any further behavioral traits such as result shape, pagination, or timeboundary handling.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the endpoint, but the phrase 'Get Calendar Events' merely restates the tool name and title. It is concise yet nearly redundant, providing little unique structured information beyond the endpoint and scope metadata.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description is too thin. It omits the mutual-exclusivity requirement among userId, groupId, and calendarId that the schema 'required' array does not capture in its required list, and it says nothing about the expected return value or failure conditions.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains units ('in millis') and the either/or constraint among userId, groupId, and calendarId. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 a specific verb and resource ('Get Calendar Events') and adds the exact endpoint (GET /calendars/events) and auth scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like calendars_get_calendar or calendars_get_appointment, though it does not explicitly say it returns a list or how those events are scoped.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling calendar/conversation/opportunity tools. It does not describe filtering by locationId/time range or the required 'one of userId, groupId, calendarId' rule, so an agent cannot reliably decide between this and calendars_get_slots or calendars_get_appointment.

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