upcoming_events

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful content detail – what fields each event includes and that results are chronological – but does not disclose pagination, limits on the number of events, or behavior when course_id is null vs set.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose (calendar events for the next days, chronological). The trailing enumeration of event types is somewhat long but each item earns its place by clarifying scope. No filler.

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?

The description adequately conveys what is returned, and an output schema exists so return-value structure needn't be explained. However, with 0% schema coverage, the complete absence of `course_id` semantics leaves a real gap for such a simple two-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It references `days` implicitly via 'next `days` days' but never explains the `course_id` parameter at all, nor clarifies whether omitting it returns all courses. Two parameters are effectively undocumented beyond their names.

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+resource (retrieves calendar events) with a clear time scope ('next `days` days') and enumerates exactly which event types are included (assignment due dates, quiz open/close, course events, personal/site events). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like upcoming_assignments (which is assignment-only) or daily_briefing.

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?

Usage is implied by the description – this returns a chronological calendar of upcoming events – but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't tell the agent, for example, when to prefer this over upcoming_assignments or workload_analysis.

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