Export due dates calendar

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the output is an ICS artifact intended for import and that empty input defaults to all active classes, but it never defines the 'upcoming' time window or whether the result is file content, a URL, or a download.

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 the artifact produced and followed by scoping and a usage trigger; nothing is padded. The quoted user phrasing is slightly verbose but functions as a useful selection cue.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it leaves ambiguous whether the ICS is returned as text, a file, or a link. The undefined 'upcoming' horizon is a second gap for a tool whose entire value is the date range it covers.

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 parameter is already documented, including a pointer to get_my_courses. The description only restates the empty-means-all-active-classes default, which the schema already says, so 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 names a specific verb (build/export), resource (upcoming due dates), and output artifact (ICS calendar file), which is far more informative than the title alone. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the close sibling get_upcoming_due_dates, so an agent must infer the difference from the 'calendar file' framing.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger via the quoted user request ('Can you give me my due dates as a calendar file?') and explains the scope decision for the optional parameter (limit by course_ids or leave empty for all active classes). It stops short of naming an alternative like get_upcoming_due_dates for when the user just wants a list rather than a file.

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