ResearchCal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope framing ('public facts', 'public deadlines') implying private data is excluded, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown or malformed id.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and keying mechanism first. The trailing field enumeration is somewhat redundant given a full output schema, but it stays compact and readable.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema fully documents the only parameter, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out here. Only error/edge-case behavior for a missing or invalid id is left unaddressed.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already says 'Event id from search' and enforces a pattern. The description's 'by its id from search' merely restates that, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('public facts of one event by its id') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly separates itself from the list_* siblings by being single-event and id-keyed, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

'by its id from search' establishes the prerequisite chain: the id must come from a prior search call, which routes the agent correctly. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives beyond the search hint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the baseline safety picture is covered. The description adds useful scope context: only *public* feeds are returned and each carries a subscribe URL, which tells the agent what to expect.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and return content front-loaded and the optional filter placed at the end. No 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?

With a rich annotation set, a full output schema, and complete parameter documentation, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions such as result ordering or whether non-public feeds can ever appear are inconsequential here.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'field' parameter is documented with examples and a self-referential hint that list_calendars returns the valid fields. The description only adds that filtering is optional, which the schema already conveys via default null and a non-required parameter, so it is a baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: list public calendars (ICS) with their subscription URLs, scoped optionally by field. That is clearly distinct from siblings like fetch, search, and list_upcoming_calendars, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'optionally for one research field' implies browsing all calendars versus narrowing to one field, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search or fetch. The agent must infer the use case from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is low; the description usefully adds result ordering, a hard cap of 20 rows per call, and how to page. The paging instruction says 'next_offset' while the schema exposes an `offset` parameter, which will confuse an agent trying to paginate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then filters then result limits; nothing is padded. The final clause is slightly wasted because it references a parameter name ('next_offset') that does not exist in the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation; the description covers ordering, page size ceiling and pagination, which is what an agent needs before calling. The only loose end is the mismatched pagination parameter name.

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 coverage is 83% and every parameter carries its own description with format examples, so baseline is 3. The description only restates the field/category/date filters and adds nothing about the format or defaults of `after`, `before`, `limit` or `offset`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List open and announced public submission deadlines in date order.' That is clearly distinct from list_calendars and fetch, though it never says how it differs from the sibling `search`.

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?

Names the available filters (field, category, date range) and the pagination mechanism, which implies the intended listing use case. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus `search` or `list_calendars`, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's added value is the result cap of 10 events and the returned links (ResearchCal page plus official source URL). That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though pagination/truncation behavior is only implicit in 'at most 10'.

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, no filler, with the scope and the match fields front-loaded and the return shape second. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, read-only search with an output schema, the description covers scope, matching fields, and result limit. Minor gaps: no indication whether 'upcoming' is a hard time filter and no statement about what happens when nothing matches.

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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter already has a description and example. The description nonetheless adds real semantics by explaining which fields the words are matched against (title, organizer, location, topic), which the schema does not say.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (upcoming academic conferences, workshops, CFPs) and names the fields matched (title, organizer, location, topic). It is distinguishable from the list-oriented siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Keyword-search intent is implied by the description and the query parameter example, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_calendars / list_upcoming_deadlines / fetch, and no stated exclusion such as 'use list_upcoming_deadlines for date-ordered browsing'.

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