list_oauth_calendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the basic behavior (listing calendars from a connection) but does not disclose additional traits like pagination, rate limits, or read-only nature. Score 3 for minimal transparency.

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 two sentences (one Spanish, one English) and is concise. However, the bilingual nature is slightly redundant; a single language would suffice. Score 4 for efficiency with minor redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does not mention return format or structure. For a simple list tool, it is somewhat complete, but lacks details on what the output contains. Score 3 for being minimally 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description restates 'ID de la conexion OAuth' for the parameter, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists available calendars from an OAuth connection (Google/Microsoft) for linking. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_calendars' by specifying OAuth context. A score of 4 is given because while clear, it could explicitly contrast with 'list_calendars'.

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 implies usage when linking calendars ('para vincular'), but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. Score 3 reflects implied but lacking explicit guidance.

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