generate_445_calendar_m

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a new query is created, the exact output columns, the startDate format with an example, and the 'Refresh afterwards' follow-up. It does not detail error handling or name conflicts, but the 'new query' wording and schema coverage provide reasonable transparency.

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 sentences effectively front-load the purpose and output, then clarify parameter semantics and required follow-up. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing expected columns. It covers the main variations of weeksPattern and periodsPerYear, and leaves yearsToGenerate to the schema, which is sufficient for a generator tool of moderate complexity. Missing details like query naming conventions are minor.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful examples and explanations for startDate (raw M, #date example), weeksPattern (445|454|544), and periodsPerYear (12 standard or 13). It does not repeat yearsToGenerate, whose schema description is already clear, so the added value is solid.

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 the tool generates a retail 4-4-5 / 4-5-4 / 5-4-4 calendar table as a new query. It specifies the output structure and the pattern options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_calendar_table_m which likely serve generic calendar generation.

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 the tool is for retail calendar creation and mentions refreshing afterwards, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or exclude cases. Sibling tools like generate_calendar_table_m are not referenced, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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