List Applicable Excluded Dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the filtering scope ('applicable to the student') and the meaning of excluded dates, which goes beyond the raw annotations. No contradictions found.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the constraints (ISO-8601, student-specific) follow naturally. There is no fluff or redundant content, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 no output schema and strong annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It states the resource, the interval format, and the intended application. It does not describe the return structure or sorting, but for a read-only list operation this is minor. An agent can confidently invoke it with the given parameters.

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. It mentions 'ISO-8601 date or datetime interval', which hints that both 'from' and 'to' are ISO-8601 strings and bound the interval, but it does not explicitly explain which parameter is the start/end or whether they are inclusive. This is a partial compensation, leaving room for interpretation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource: 'institution-wide excluded dates applicable to the student'. It also specifies the interval format (ISO-8601 date or datetime) and gives examples ('holidays or closure periods'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_course_deadlines or list_student_appointments, which target different data types.

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 frames the use case: retrieving unavailable scheduling dates. It implies when to use this tool (e.g., checking holidays affecting the student's schedule) but does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions. While not exhaustive, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings without further guidance.

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