Calendar events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the default page size of 20 and the pagination stepping model, which is useful. It omits whether results span all enrolled courses, how events are ordered, and any timezone handling — meaningful gaps for a calendar read.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, how to scope it, how to page it, then an example. The most important scoping information is front-loaded. The example sentence is slightly redundant with the prior sentence but earns its place by grounding intent.

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 read-only, four-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, format, and pagination adequately. The remaining shortfall is that it never describes the shape of returned events (title, course, due time), which would help an agent decide whether this answers the user's question.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the YYYY-MM-DD format and the limit/page defaults without adding semantics such as whether the date range is inclusive or what happens when start_date is omitted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource — Canvas calendar events plus assignment due dates — with a clear list verb. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_assignments or get_upcoming_due_dates, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with export_due_dates_calendar or get_upcoming_due_dates.

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 concrete example question ('What is on my Canvas calendar between 2026-10-01 and 2026-10-31?') anchors when this tool applies, and the pagination sentence explains the long-list case. It stops short of stating exclusions — nothing says which sibling to use instead when you want due dates only or an exportable calendar.

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