list_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key aggregation behavior and filter capabilities, but omits details like default time boundaries, output format, or permissions. For a list operation, safety is implied, but transparency is only partial.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the aggregation behavior, and the filter capabilities. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the main filtering behavior but leaves ambiguity about what the list returns and default time-range behavior when time_min/time_max are omitted. This makes it adequate but not fully complete.

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 descriptions already cover all 7 parameters, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that omitting account aggregates across all enabled accounts, and explicitly confirms query as text search.

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 is explicit: "List calendar events" is a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_event (single event) and list_calendars (calendar metadata), and adds the scoping nuance of account aggregation.

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 on when to use the tool: supports time range and text search, and explains the account-omission aggregation behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient given siblings like get_event.

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