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

Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful detail beyond them: the exact return record shape, ISO date formats, the inclusive endDate semantics for multi-day events, and the null endDate for single-day events. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it does not cover edge cases like empty results.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, then return format, then date conventions and default behavior. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.

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 optional parameter, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the shape of each record, the meaning of fields, and default year behavior. No output schema exists, but the description compensates fully.

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%: the schema already documents the year parameter and its default. The description only repeats that default and adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb ('조회합니다' / retrieve) and resource ('숭실대학교 학사일정') and enumerates event types such as course registration, midterm/final exams, and vacations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling find_academic_calendar_events, so it misses the differentiation needed for a 5.

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 clear context for using the tool—academic calendar queries—and explains the optional year parameter. It provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over find_academic_calendar_events or any other sibling, leaving the when-not-to-use/alternatives dimension implicit.

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