List Calendar Event Instances

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by disclosing the error behavior ('Error: Resource not found' for invalid event ID) and the return content (list with start/end times and location), which are not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs, so it adds some but not extensive behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' and 'Returns:' section that efficiently covers key details without waste. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (a read-only list operation with pagination and format options), annotations cover safety, and the description adds error handling and return content. However, there is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by specifying return values. It could be more complete by detailing pagination behavior or example outputs, but it is largely adequate for the context.

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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by restating parameter purposes (e.g., 'event_id' as calendar event ID) and default values, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for 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 the resource 'specific instances (occurrences) of a calendar event', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pco_list_calendar_events (which lists events rather than their instances). This precise wording helps the agent understand the exact scope of the tool.

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 by specifying that event_id should be obtained from pco_list_calendar_events, which implicitly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pco_get_calendar_event or when not to use it, leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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