calendar_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses recurring-event expansion, hidden-calendar coverage, and the important side effect that `include_unsynced=true` temporarily enables sync, is slow (about a minute), and turns sync back off afterward. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 purpose, followed by range rules, defaults, and important caveats. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure makes it easy to scan without wasting space.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical context: purpose, default time range, calendar scope, hidden-calendar behavior, and the temporary-sync side effect. It does not describe the returned event shape, sorting, or timezone handling, which are minor but real gaps given the absence of an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between `period` and `start`/`end`/`days`, the default range, and the behavioral implications of `include_hidden` and `include_unsynced`.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List event occurrences in a time range,' and adds that recurring events are expanded into instances. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as calendar_search or calendar_next.

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 gives clear operational guidance for selecting a time range via `period` or `start` plus `end`/`days`, and states the default when nothing is provided. It also explains when `include_hidden` and `include_unsynced` matter, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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