Purdue academic calendar and registrar info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (purdu.edu/registrar via WordPress REST API, live) and the scope (calendar + registrar pages). However, it does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the query is omitted (though that is covered in the schema). The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but is not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides the source. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, what it covers, and the source. It is complete for a simple query tool. It could briefly mention that the return format is a list of calendar events or registrar pages, but the examples in the schema partially compensate.

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 100% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 the tool retrieves the official academic calendar (specific events: first day, breaks, finals, commencement) and also searches any registrar page by keyword. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_events or search_courses by explicitly naming the resource (registrar/academic calendar) and the verb 'retrieve' is implied.

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 the tool: for academic calendar dates or registrar-specific info by keyword. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer it's for registrar-related queries, not for general Purdue events or other topics.

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