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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It states creation and return of a confirmation string with link, but lacks side-effect details, permissions, or constraints (e.g., conflict handling, rate limits).

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?

Well-organized with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, each parameter on its own line. No fluff, but the list is long (10 items) which is acceptable for the parameter count.

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?

Covers purpose, parameter explanations, and return value adequately. However, lacks behavioral details like whether it can create events in the past, recurrence support, or attendee limits. With an output schema present, return format detail is unnecessary.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: specifies ISO format for times, explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'List of attendee emails'), and mentions default values and the effect of create_meet_link. However, 'reminders' remains vague (opaque object).

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?

Clear verb 'Create' and resource 'calendar event' with specific details. The description distinguishes from the only sibling tool 'health' which is unrelated.

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions provided, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Simple health check' suggests a non-destructive, read-only operation, but does not disclose what the check entails (e.g., connectivity, database status), what is returned, or any side effects.

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 a single phrase, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it does not hint at the output structure or typical usage patterns, which could be helpful given the availability of a output schema.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist. Baseline 4 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 'Simple health check' clearly indicates the tool is a health-check endpoint. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_event' which is about event creation, so purpose is clear but lacks specificity on what constitutes a health check.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_event). The phrase 'Simple health check' implies basic usage, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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