next_recurrence_occurrences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a pure calculation with no side effects (creates no schedule, stores nothing, runs nothing) and lists the RRULE features it honours. This provides sufficient transparency for a simple computation tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and supported features, while the second clarifies side-effect-free behavior. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity (no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, supported features, and behavioral transparency. It omits output format and timezone handling, but for a straightforward computation tool, this is adequate. The pure calculation statement adds valuable context.

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 is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it only reiterates the RRULE features for the 'rule' parameter and does not enhance understanding of 'count' or 'start' beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 it expands an iCalendar recurrence rule into next occurrences from a start date and time, specifically naming supported RRULE parts (INTERVAL, COUNT, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explain_recurrence_rule (explanation) and validate_recurrence_rule (validation) by focusing on computation.

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 implies use when you need to compute future occurrences without side effects, stating 'creates no schedule, stores nothing, and runs nothing.' While it does not explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., explain_cron_expression, validate_recurrence_rule) helps differentiate usage.

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