blackboard_list_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: only *published* events are returned and the result is not the full academic schedule. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource and scope before the disambiguating caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence packs two distinct ideas without separating them.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the range semantics and the scope caveat. But with 0% schema coverage it should also explain the courseId filter, and it gives no hint about return volume or pagination.

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%, so the description carries full burden for three parameters. It loosely identifies the two date parameters via 'entre dos fechas ISO 8601', but the optional courseId filter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific resource (eventos publicados en el calendario de Blackboard) and a scope (between two ISO 8601 dates), which distinguishes it from the surrounding listing tools. It stops short of an explicit verb and never names the sibling it is not, but an agent can still tell it apart from a course-meetings/schedule tool.

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 clause 'no representa el horario académico completo' implies the boundary against the academic-schedule tool (e.g. blackboard_list_course_meetings), but the alternative is never named and no positive when-to-use condition is given. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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