calendar_list_calendars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'can read', implying read-only, but does not mention any permissions, error conditions (e.g., invalid account), or response characteristics. For a simple list, this is a significant gap given no annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter fully documented in the schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of calendar IDs and names) or any pagination/limits. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 100% coverage of the 'account' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Google Calendars' and the scope 'an account can read'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_list_events (which lists events) and gmail_list_accounts. No ambiguity in purpose.

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 listing calendars readable by an account, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any exclusions. The name and context make the use case obvious, but explicit guidance is absent.

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