recurrence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable guarantees: deterministic conversion 'where possible', always bounded results, and never infinite recurrences. It does not discuss output format or invalid-input behavior, but the core safety constraints are covered.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded, and the boundedness guarantee is delivered in compact separate statements. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers purpose and constraints, but it does not address the relationship between the rrule and natural_language fields—for instance, what happens if both are provided or neither is provided. Since no output schema exists, this ambiguity is a real gap.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that natural_language inputs are deterministically converted to RRULE where possible, and by tying result bounds to date ranges rather than just listing fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate recurring date schedules using RFC 5545 RRULE.' It also covers the natural-language mode, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like calculate_date or business_days.

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 implies when to use it—whenever recurring date schedules are needed, including natural-language patterns—and sets clear constraints (bounded results, no infinite recurrences). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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