mdl_calendar_quarter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing behavioral on top of that. It does not disclose what the response contains, whether it needs authentication, or how upstream quarter semantics differ from other calendar calls.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity reflects missing substance rather than disciplined editing — the size is not proportionate to a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no annotations-level explanation of the return shape, the description leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly — the format of the required quarter value is the core blocker and it is deferred to external documentation. It is not misleading, but it is materially incomplete.

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 0% and the schema documents neither year nor quarter (quarter has no even a type). The description notes that quarter is "the upstream quarter identifier" and points to "documented API values," which is a partial hint but leaves the accepted format (Q1? 1? 2024-Q1?) undefined for both parameters.

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?

"Calendar: quarter" essentially restates the tool name and never states a verb or what the tool actually does (fetch? list? compute period boundaries?). It hints at a calendar resource, and the pairing with the sibling mdl_calendar_episodes suggests a period-based calendar view, but the agent must guess the operation.

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?

"use documented API values" gestures at input conventions but gives no condition for choosing this tool over mdl_calendar_episodes or any other calendar sibling, and no prerequisites are stated. The only guidance is about values, not about when to call it.

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