Get calendar events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and partial results. The description adds the scoping requirement and clarifies that startTime/endTime are in epoch milliseconds, which are behavioral constraints not present in annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but the added context is valuable enough to earn a 4.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first states purpose, the second covers the key precondition and time units. Information is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 description covers the core requirements (list events, time window, scoping) but leaves ambiguity about whether 'one of' means exactly one or at least one of the scope parameters, and whether they are mutually exclusive. It also doesn't address pagination or result limits, which is relevant given the openWorldHint. For a read-only list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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 50% (only startTime, endTime, locationId have descriptions). The description compensates for the three undocumented scope parameters (calendarId, userId, groupId) by explaining that one must be provided and their role. It also reiterates the time unit for startTime/endTime, adding clarity. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (calendar events/appointments), and scopes it within a time window. It clearly differentiates from siblings like ghl_get_calendars (which lists calendars) and ghl_get_appointment (which retrieves a single appointment). The inclusion of the scoping requirement adds precision.

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 contextual guidance by stating that one of calendarId, userId, or groupId is required to scope the query, which is a critical prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is sufficient.

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