get_upcoming_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the active-school scope and the fact that events include closed status, but it does not disclose behaviors like date-range inclusivity, ordering, or what happens when no events exist. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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: the main behavior and key output fields appear first, followed by the optional filtering detail. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it does not significantly harm the structure.

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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It communicates the essential scope, output fields, and filter capability. The only minor gaps are the exact semantics of the date range and the boundary of 'upcoming,' but these are not critical for a well-formed call.

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% because both parameters already have 'YYYY-MM-DD' descriptions. The description adds the names start_date and end_date and reiterates the format, but does not explain whether both are required, whether the range is inclusive, or what the default range is. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation ('Returns upcoming events'), the scope ('for the user's active school'), and the key fields included (date, times, location, closed status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event, update_event, and cancel_event, which are mutation-focused.

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 clear context: this is a read-only retrieval tool for upcoming events, with an optional date range filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only and 'upcoming' scoping make the intended use reasonably clear.

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