calendar_list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does disclose two important behaviors: recurring events are expanded into occurrences, and it is read-only. However, it does not go beyond that to mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how pagination works (though maxResults is in the schema). For a read-only list operation, the disclosed behaviors are sufficient to set expectations, but the description could add more context about what is returned.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the recurring-expansion note adds key behavior without bloating the text. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it lists, the scope, and the recurring-event expansion. It does not describe the return format, but the agent can infer that events are returned. The lack of explicit exclusions or error handling is minor given the simplicity of the tool. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all five parameters have descriptive text. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'time range' which maps to timeMin/timeMax, but this is redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate with extra syntax or format details.

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'), a clear resource ('events from one Google Calendar'), and a scope ('within a time range'). It also notes that recurring events are expanded, which adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_list_calendars (which lists calendars, not events) and ical_list_events (which handles iCal feeds, not Google Calendar). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for Google Calendar events, but there is no explicit exclusion of iCal feeds or other calendar systems. Since the sibling list includes ical_list_events, a clearer 'use this for Google Calendar, not iCal' would improve guidance, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the right context.

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