get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only and safe nature is covered. The description adds that it returns calendar and days-off in a date range, which gives some context, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or the definition of 'dni wolne.' This matches the calibration where annotations cover the safety profile, yielding a moderate score.

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, tight sentence with no filler or redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core resource and scope. Because every word earns its place and it is simple to parse, it merits a high conciseness score.

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 input schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but there is no output schema. The description only gives a high-level 'calendar and days off' without specifying what fields or event types are returned, nor does it clarify how this differs from get_timetable. For a tool that might return a mix of schedule and holiday data, this is a noticeable gap. Overall, it is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already described in the input schema. The description only repeats the concepts of child and date range, adding no new meaning about parameter values or formats. Per the rubric, a high-coverage schema sets a baseline of 3, and no extra parameter detail is provided.

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 names the resource (calendar and free days) and scope (child, date range), matching the get_calendar name. It goes beyond a vague label and does not contradict the name. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action, and it could still be confused with sibling get_timetable without more differentiation, so it does not earn a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_timetable or list_students. There are no stated alternatives, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between similar calendar/schedule tools. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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