List calendars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "Read-only, no undo step." Beyond the safety profile it adds genuine domain behavior: what an empty weekday slot means (a day off) and that exception days cover public and special days. It does not describe pagination or result shape, but that is partly covered by the output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and the returned data model, with the read-only caveat appended. Every clause carries information (weekly scheme, sun..sat order, empty = day off, exception day types), though the parenthetical stacking makes it slightly heavy.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return structure, the description supplies the remaining domain context an agent needs: what a calendar record consists of and what the period filters delimit. Only the routing against sibling calendar tools 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the id source and the DD.MM.YYYY hh:mm formats. The description only echoes the period-scoping idea ("within the period"), adding no syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reads calendars of the master data") and enumerates what the calendars contain: the weekly scheme with shifts per weekday and the exception days. That is far more specific than the bare title, though it never names how it differs from near siblings such as rillsoft_calendar_source_get or rillsoft_calendar_create/update.

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 the read scope ("within the period") but gives no when-to-use, no when-not, and no alternative tool. An agent gets no routing help against the calendar_source_get or resource_pool_catalog_list siblings, and must infer from the schema that id must be sourced elsewhere.

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