get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: a login prerequisite, the NOT_AUTHENTICATED sentinel and its recovery chain, the term-scoped nature of festivals, and what the unfiltered default returns. These are non-obvious runtime traits an agent needs.

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 front-loaded: resource and contents first, then per-filter usage, then recovery paths. Slight redundancy where the semesterId term-scoping explanation is repeated between description and schema, but every sentence carries operational value.

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 compensates by describing the default return set and the NOT_AUTHENTICATED error sentinel. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the per-parameter baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining cross-parameter behavior not in the schema — the default result when no filter is supplied, and the term-scoping that governs query/semesterId — which genuinely aids correct invocation.

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 (academic calendar) and enumerates its contents: holidays, events, working Saturdays/day-orders, and instructional days. It also names a sibling (get_semesters) for the term-scoping case, so the agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 explicitly maps each filter to an intent (query for a named event, month for a listing, holidaysOnly for no-class days, no filter for notable days) and gives a concrete fallback: if query finds nothing, call get_semesters and retry. It also prescribes the exact recovery path on NOT_AUTHENTICATED (get_captcha then login then retry).

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