Purdue library hours

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 mentions that data is live (from LibCal), which is helpful context. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the LibCal source is unavailable. The boolean parameters' effects are hinted but not fully detailed (e.g., 'open_now' returns only currently open libraries).

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 exceptionally concise, using only two sentences that cover purpose, scope, and data source without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the most critical information ('Today's hours and open/closed status') and provides examples of library names to clarify the query parameter's use.

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 that there are three optional boolean parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fairly sets expectations about what is returned (hours/status for today or a week). It could be more complete by describing the output format (e.g., 'returns library name, hours, and a boolean for open/closed') or by disclosing potential error conditions (e.g., if the source is down). However, for a simple query tool, the description is largely adequate.

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%, meaning each parameter (week, query, open_now) has a description. The tool description adds context by naming specific libraries ('WALC, Hicks, HSSE, Parrish, Archives') and explaining that 'week' returns 'a full week's grid', but it does not explicitly define parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema and description together give sufficient but not enriched semantics.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('hours and open/closed status for every Purdue library and study space') and distinguishes itself from the many siblings (e.g., dining, bus, athletics) by focusing exclusively on library hours. It also mentions the data source ('Purdue Libraries LibCal (live)').

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 provides clear context about what the tool returns (today's hours or a full week's grid) and implicitly guides the agent to use it for library hours queries versus any of the 28+ sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for related but different queries (e.g., library event hours).

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