list_public_exams

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds two things they do not: no authentication token is required, and it reads at most three pages, which signals that results may be truncated rather than exhaustive. That pagination cap is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat an agent needs; only the absence of any note on what a truncated result looks like keeps it from 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by constraints, with no filler. The raw endpoint path is arguably noise for an agent, but it is brief and does not obscure the main statement.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only source of detail about the request shape and response — and it says nothing about the four inputs or what exam records contain. For a four-parameter, untyped-output listing tool this leaves substantial gaps despite the good notes on auth and page limits.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden — yet it mentions none of from, to, limit, or courseNumbers. An agent gets no hint about date format expectations, whether the range is inclusive, how limit interacts with the three-page cap, or how courseNumbers filters results.

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 ('List public exam dates') and even names the backing endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. The word 'public' implicitly distinguishes it from list_my_exams, but no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 exclusion 'Does not register for an exam' and 'No token' give useful context about when this tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly contrasts with list_my_exams or states the condition that should route an agent here versus the personal-exam variant, so the guidance remains implied.

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