大事日历-即将发生(埋伏提醒)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-like operation via '返回' and discloses that returned events include `days_until` and `bury_window` markers. It does not mention details like date formatting or sorting, but for a simple read-only listing tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

One dense Chinese sentence delivers the operation, parameter semantics, output markers, and usage context without waste. The most important behavior is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return markers. It lacks notes on ordering or the exact meaning/format of `bury_window`, but the agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret a basic response.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It does: `days` is explained as the number of future days, and `as_of` is explained as an optional reference date replacing today. A concrete date format example would make this a 5.

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 returns events for the upcoming `days` days from today or a specified `as_of` date, with `days_until` and `bury_window` markers. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from calendar siblings like calendar_month and calendar_range, which imply different time-window scopes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is the core endpoint for the login dashboard's upcoming-events view, returning future events relative to today or `as_of`. It does not explicitly name alternative calendar tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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