get_schedule_ics

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: weekly RRULEs bounded to the semester, local America/New_York wall-clock times, and authority on semester boundaries. These details help the agent anticipate recurrence and timezone behavior without needing to inspect the output. There is no contradiction with the annotation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately provides usage context and timezone details. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 a single optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage routing, recurrence, and timezone. The only notable omission is the meaning of the term parameter, which could matter when targeting a specific semester. Overall, it is quite complete for a low-complexity 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?

The lone parameter term has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains how it affects the export. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The agent cannot determine what term values are expected or what the default behavior is.

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 names a specific deliverable: the official iCalendar (.ics) export of the schedule. It also differentiates from sibling get_schedule by noting it is authoritative on semester start and end dates and includes weekly RRULEs. The verb 'export' is specific, and the format is clearly identified.

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?

It explicitly says to call this when integrating with calendar tools or when the user wants schedule as calendar events. It contrasts with get_schedule, which does not carry semester date authority, giving the agent a clear decision rule. This is strong routing guidance.

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