get_agenda

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the half-open interval semantics (start inclusive, end exclusive) and the timezone-bearing ISO format. However, it references 'nextOffset' for pagination while the schema exposes offset/limit and no output schema is present, leaving the paging mechanism ambiguous rather than clarified.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and interval semantics, with no filler. The pagination sentence is compact, though its nextOffset terminology is imprecise given 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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves too much unspecified: filtering behavior (courseId, includeTasks, includeSubmitted), page size, and the exact return/pagination shape. The agent must guess at more than half the surface.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. Only from/to are addressed (as ISO dates with timezone); limit, offset, courseId, includeTasks and includeSubmitted remain entirely undocumented in both places, and the nextOffset mention clashes with the actual offset parameter.

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 resource and scope: school deadlines and personal plans within a half-open interval. An agent can tell it returns aggregated agenda items rather than a single item or raw material. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_personal_tasks or get_schedule_changes, which overlap in domain.

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 concrete usage conditions for the date format ('ISO dates including timezone') and pagination ('query the next page with nextOffset'), which is real operational guidance. But it never states when to prefer this tool over the many sibling listing tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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