calendar_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: events are expanded into single instances and ordered by start time. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a read-only listing tool with strong annotations, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core function and key output traits without wasted words.

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 moderate complexity with four parameters and an output schema, but the description covers the essential behavior (expansion, ordering, read-only). The schema explains parameters in detail, and the output schema handles return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the 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?

The input schema provides rich descriptions for all four parameters (max_results, calendar_key, time_min_iso, time_max_iso), so the schema itself carries the parameter semantics. The description only mentions calendar_key and does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with 'List events from the secondary calendar for calendar_key', clearly stating the action (list) and resource (calendar events), and identifies the key parameter. It further defines the output behavior (expanded into single instances, ordered by start time). This distinguishes it from the sibling calendar_upsert_event, which is a write operation.

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 the tool is for reading events and explicitly labels it as read-only, which suggests it should not be used for modifications. However, it does not name alternatives like calendar_upsert_event or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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