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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the important side effects: the dataset is stored, an iCalendar feed is published under a token, recomputation happens in place, and refreshes update events rather than duplicating them. It also explains why refresh is safe by tying the computation to the block record. It does not mention billing or authorization, but the core mutation and idempotency behavior is transparent.

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 core sentence is front-loaded, but the description becomes quite long and includes illustrative material like 'appears next to the school run and the market stall' and a historical rationale for why refresh is safe. These add color and rationale, but the prose is noticeably longer than needed for an agent to decide how to invoke the tool.

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 compute-and-store tool with no annotations, it covers the operation, the structured-row output, the iCalendar feed artifact, and token lifecycle behavior. The input schema covers prerequisites like saving a block first, and an output schema exists, so the main missing piece is explicit routing to sibling calendar tools rather than invocation-critical context.

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 80%, so the baseline applies and the schema already documents most parameter meaning. The description adds useful context for token and for what the block conceptually contributes, but it introduces a slightly confusing line: 'Nothing is passed in but the block,' which could be read as conflicting with the schema's real parameters like npub, season, and dpop_token.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation and resource: 'Compute this block's dated season as a dataset, and store it for publishing.' Phrases like 'stored alongside', 'feed token', and 'recompute in place' make it clear this creates or refreshes a dataset rather than fetching or listing one. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary with calendar_fetch/list/revoke.

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 gives a clear create-vs-refresh condition: pass an existing token to recompute in place, omit it to create. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool over the calendar_fetch, calendar_list, or calendar_revoke siblings, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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