Get my B2match schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond them: the PDF agenda URL is conditionally omitted unless include_pdf_link is true, which tells the agent why a field may be absent. It does not describe pagination or the full return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and scope come first, then sibling routing, then the one conditional output nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the one surprising output condition. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., what happens if the viewer has no schedule, or whether registration is required), which are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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%, so both the event identifier format and the include_pdf_link flag are already documented. The description only restates the include_pdf_link behavior rather than adding constraints such as accepted slug/euid forms or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the logged-in viewer's personal event schedule') plus the concrete contents (booked sessions and meetings). It names the siblings it is not — get_agenda and my_meetings — so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_agenda for the full public agenda, use my_meetings for meeting requests by status, use this for the personal schedule. Each alternative comes with the condition that selects it.

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