list_calendar_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the content scope (events, exam dates, submissions) and says nothing about ordering, result volume, or how the look-ahead window affects output.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded; nothing redundant or padded. It could be marginally stronger by naming the look-ahead window already featured in the schema.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the calendar source and the kinds of items returned. Missing only minor details such as time horizon defaults, which the schema already supplies.

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% and the single days_ahead parameter is fully documented, including its default of 30 and 10-year max. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('eventos, fechas de exámenes y entregas del calendario de Moodle'), so an agent knows it is a read of upcoming Moodle calendar items. It implicitly contrasts with calendar_add_event, but carries no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 word 'próximos' implies this is for upcoming items rather than past or arbitrary ranges, which gives implied usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over calendar_add_event or other list tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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