get_school_events

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses auth injection server-side, throttling to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retry behavior on 429/5xx, and the precise error mapping for non-2xx responses. It also confirms 'creates, changes and deletes nothing,' which aligns with and enriches the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then organized into Behavior, Returns, and Use when sections. Every sentence adds distinct value—endpoint, safety, auth, throttling, errors, and usage guidance—with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only list endpoint with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, behavioral guarantees, auth, rate limits, return format, error handling, and recommended usage. No important context is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional parameter is already fully documented with an enum and 'Filter by event type.' The description only restates the enum values in prose and does not add semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get school events' and specifies the resource with an HTTP endpoint, then enumerates the exact event types returned (course drip feed, file assignment, live session). This is a specific verb+resource that is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_event_logs or get_courses.

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 says 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting' and provides a clear exclusion: 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' This gives the agent both a positive use case and a when-not-to-use condition, even though the write tool isn't named directly.

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