Blackboard calendar events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists the types of entries returned, states the default all-courses scope, and implies date-range filtering behavior. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but the annotations carry the main safety burden, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 with zero waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, the entry types are enumerated compactly, and the sibling routing is a single clear sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what it returns, the default scope, and when to use the sibling instead. It doesn't describe the return shape or pagination, but with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations plus 80% schema coverage, the remaining gaps are minor. A 4 is appropriate.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the default 'Covers all courses by default' which clarifies courseId's optionality, and the date-range framing maps to days/since/until. However, it doesn't add detail about limit or the interaction between since/until and days beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a resource ('calendar entries'), and a scope ('in a date range'), and enumerates the entry types included (class sessions, instructor-created events, assignment due dates). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling bb_todo by noting the default all-courses behavior. This is a clear, specific purpose statement that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly says to use bb_todo instead when the question is specifically about assignment deadlines, which is a clear when-not-to-use directive. It also states the default behavior ('Covers all courses by default'), which implies when to use it (broad calendar queries) versus when to restrict with courseId. This is strong usage guidance.

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