calendar_list_calendars

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by stating no creation or sharing occurs. It also proactively mentions that unknown permissions and partial results remain explicit, providing transparency about potential limitations.

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 concise, using two sentences without unnecessary jargon or repetition. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds relevant clarifications in the second sentence.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's scope, non-mutating nature, and potential for partial results. It does not describe the return format, but that is not specified in the schema and is not critical for a listing tool.

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 only parameter, accountId, is self-explanatory by name, but the description does not add any additional meaning or clarify its format or scope. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate, but the parameter's purpose is straightforward.

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 tool's function: discovering accessible calendars for a specified account. It also explicitly notes that no calendars are created or shared, distinguishing it from mutating calendar operations.

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?

It is clear this tool is for reading/listing calendars, and the note about not creating or sharing implies when to avoid using it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other read-only calendar tools like search_events, though the distinct purpose is evident.

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