school_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It reveals key behavioral traits: the default search period (3 months), the automatic extension logic (to 12 months if no events found), and caching behavior (implied by the 'refresh' parameter). This goes beyond the input schema to explain operational logic, though it could mention authentication needs more explicitly.

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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured in a single sentence, front-loading the core purpose and efficiently adding operational details without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and key behavior but lacks details on output format (e.g., what events look like), error handling, or authentication requirements beyond the 'userEmail' parameter. This leaves gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in all contexts.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implicitly referencing the 'searchMonths' default and fallback, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context for parameters like 'userEmail' or 'refresh'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('upcoming school calendar events'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'search_directory' or 'lunch_volunteers' that might also involve school-related data, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning the default search period and fallback behavior, which helps an agent understand when to use it for event queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'search_directory' for non-event data) or any prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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