Get the all-school schedule

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the window behavior (returns 10 observed events, not whole season) and explains the difference between startLocal and start (local time vs UTC), which are critical for correct interpretation of results. No contradiction with annotations; description adds significant value.

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 a single paragraph with three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, window caveat and alternative, and time zone clarification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could be structuring as bullets, but it is efficient and readable.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the key output characteristics: event window, ordering, and the startLocal/start fields. It also mentions the alternative tool. It does not enumerate all possible fields or error cases, but for a read-only tool with one optional parameter, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the year parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default behavior and past-season resolution advice. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the schema completeness. Baseline of 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?

States the verb 'Get', the resource 'all-school schedule', and the scope 'upcoming events across every team, oldest first'. Explicitly distinguishes from mpaz_get_team_schedule by contrasting the window of events vs. full season. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 says 'for a team's full season use mpaz_get_team_schedule', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. Also notes the window of 10 events, clarifying when this tool is insufficient. No ambiguity about when to use it.

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