timepiece_search_calendar

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (ID, name, timezone, working hours, default flag) and listing parameter defaults. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear heading, use-case sentence, Args list, and Returns line. It is front-loaded and concise, though the Args section could be slightly more compact. No wasted sentences.

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 tool's simplicity (search by name) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. It lacks mention of edge cases like no results or error handling, but is otherwise complete.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, covering their meaning. The description restates these with defaults and types but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search for Timepiece calendars by name' and explains the use case of finding a calendar's numeric ID from its name. The verb 'search' and resource 'calendars' are specific, and the description implies differentiation from sibling tools like timepiece_list_calendars.

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 suggests when to use (when you know the name and need the ID) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like timepiece_list_calendars. 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.