List Calendar Events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the return format options ('markdown' or 'json'), default values, and error handling ('Returns "Error: ..." if the request fails'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' section and return/error information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential details without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (list operation with filtering and pagination), annotations cover safety aspects, and the description adds output format and error handling. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not fully explain the structure of returned events (e.g., fields like 'name', 'approval status' are mentioned but not detailed), leaving some gaps in completeness.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats some parameter details (e.g., filter options, limit range, default values) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why certain filters exist or how pagination works in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('events in Planning Center Calendar'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pco_get_calendar_event' (singular retrieval) and 'pco_list_calendar_resources' (different resource type), avoiding tautology by not just repeating the name/title.

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 provides clear context for usage through the 'filter' parameter options (e.g., 'approved', 'future'), which implicitly guides when to apply specific filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pco_list_event_instances' or 'pco_list_checkin_events', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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