calendar_view_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses a real side effect (if provider events are missing from the app, 'the app is refreshed and read again') and what happens to ones still absent ('listed in not_shown_event_ids'). It also explains the semantics of the response field (absent when you accepted or organise). It stops short of stating permissions or performance/rate implications.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the value-add, then the row shape — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The dense parenthetical field list ('response (Not responded / No / Maybe..., absent when you accepted...)') is efficient but borders on a run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description effectively supplies one by enumerating row kinds and fields, plus the not_shown_event_ids fallback. What's missing is any statement of result size limits, date-range errors, or failure behavior for malformed dates — minor for a read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so date, days, include and match_ids are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning ('one or more days', id matching tied to event_id/instance_id) rather than extra format or edge-case rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Read what the Calendar app shows for one or more days, as structured rows (schedule view)'. The phrase 'Shows things the provider lacks' draws the key distinction from provider-backed siblings like calendar_events and calendar_get, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for use (app-rendered schedule incl. working locations, tasks, RSVP) and an explicit follow-on path: use event_id/instance_id with calendar.open_event / calendar.rsvp. It never explicitly says when to prefer calendar_events or calendar_get instead, so exclusions are left to inference.

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