get_academic_calendar

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the source site may not include certain schedules, and the year argument is ignored—information not in annotations. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful limitation note and parameter clarification. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, limitations, and parameter behavior. Combined with annotations, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage for parameters is 0%, but the description explicitly explains the sole parameter 'year' as backward-compatible and having no effect on results. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema, which only lists type/default.

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 a specific verb and resource: '조회합니다' (queries) the 'current upcoming major academic schedules' of Kangwon University Chuncheon Campus, with examples. It is distinct from all sibling tools (cafeteria, notices, shuttle, bus), so no ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context: intended for current upcoming schedules and explicitly notes limitations (past/far-future schedules may be absent). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so not a 5.

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