schoology_get_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, pagination, result ordering, or what happens when start/end are omitted (0 required parameters). For a read tool with zero structured hints, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and constraints come first. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a result of missing information rather than disciplined trimming.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It leaves return shape, date-boundary semantics, default behavior for omitted parameters, and sibling differentiation entirely unspecified.

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 there are two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the ISO date format and that the two values form a range boundary, which adds real meaning over the bare format: date fields, but it never states whether the bounds are inclusive or how optionality/defaults behave.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Schoology calendar events'), and a scope ('between two ISO dates'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of a 5 because it does not differentiate itself from the sibling schoology_get_upcoming_events, which sounds like the same capability.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over schoology_get_upcoming_events, nor any prerequisite context (e.g. authentication or section scoping). The only usage signal is the implicit date-range constraint, which is left for the agent to infer.

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