List events in a window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully communicates recurrence expansion, sorting by start, timezone fallback behavior, and ID reusability. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but still provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list events' statement.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences: the first states scope and ordering, the second clarifies timezone behavior, and the third explains useful downstream tool compatibility. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: date window, recurrence expansion, sorting, timezone handling, and ID usefulness for related tools. It does not detail the response envelope, but the gap is modest given the clear scope and title.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to define them. It adds one useful nuance about the 'zone' parameter and local time display, which goes slightly beyond the schema, but the schema remains the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 core behavior is clear: 'Every event between two dates, recurring expanded to occurrences, sorted by start' names the resource and the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like events_search, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 tool is for retrieving all events in a date range and notes that resulting IDs work for event_export or event_to_time_entry. However, it does not explicitly say when to use events_list versus events_search, free_busy, next_event, or other calendar-related siblings.

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