Next event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it specifies the selection criterion (not started, within 366 days), scope (all imported calendars or named one), and return contents including timezone behavior. It does not address edge cases like 'no event found' or error handling, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core behavior first, then the optional scope, then the return fields. There is no filler or redundancy, and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core details an agent needs: what event is selected, how calendar scoping works, and what fields come back. It omits failure behavior and exact time formatting details, but those are not essential for this tool's straightforward use.

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 100% for the single calendar parameter, so the schema already documents what the parameter does. The description adds only the phrase 'or one you name,' which restates the schema's meaning without providing new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precisely defines what the tool returns: the first event not yet started within 366 days, either across all imported calendars or a specified one. It also enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like events_list and events_search, which handle broader listing and searching.

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 the obvious use case—get the next upcoming event—but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over events_search, events_list, or free_busy. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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