Calendar for a date range

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds real operational detail beyond them: a 50-event cap, a 366-day maximum window, oldest-first ordering, inclusive endpoints, and the fact that non-actionable events are included. These are exactly the limits an agent needs to avoid misreporting 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?

Dense but well front-loaded: purpose, scope, sibling contrast, then parameters. Minor waste in restating inclusive date bounds already covered by the schema, and the example question about 'what is due' slightly blurs the distinction between calendar events and due dates.

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 describing results and does so: course name and date, oldest first, capped at 50. Combined with the date-window limit and timezone note, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 67%, and the description fills the main gap by specifying the server's local time zone for the date strings and reiterating inclusive boundaries and the optional course_ids filter. It adds meaning beyond the schema but does not explain how course_ids behaves with multiple values or how to page past the 50-event cap.

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?

Opens with a concrete user question and states a specific verb and resource: lists up to 50 calendar events between start_date and end_date, oldest first, with course name and date. It explicitly differentiates itself from get_upcoming_due_dates and get_overdue, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 two alternative tools and the condition that selects this one: any dates, past or future, and events that need no action. The closing example ('What is due the week of Dec 1?') reinforces the trigger condition, leaving little to inference.

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