plms_export_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description's 'no calendar account is modified' clarifies that this is an export rather than a sync to an external calendar, which is a small but genuine addition; it says nothing about the deadline window or scope.

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 zero waste; the core action and the key non-effect are stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a tool with two fully undocumented parameters and a close sibling, the description leaves the agent short of what it needs to call it correctly.

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% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The 'days' window and the optional 'course_id' filter are entirely undocumented, so an agent cannot know the export horizon defaults to 30 days or that results can be narrowed to one course.

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 ('Return an ICS calendar of known upcoming deadlines') and the output format (ICS), which is meaningful. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling plms_upcoming_deadlines, so an agent must guess which to call.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the near-identical alternative plms_upcoming_deadlines. The agent gets no criterion for choosing this tool over that sibling, nor any prerequisite information.

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