Search student-org events on BoilerLink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that data is 'live' from 'BoilerLink / Anthology Engage', implying freshness and external dependency. It also specifies the type of information returned (time, room, host org). A minor gap: it doesn't mention read-only behavior or potential network latency, but the source declaration is strong transparency.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose, specifies key output fields, distinguishes from a related tool, and cites the data source. Every sentence earns its place.

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's low parameter count (2), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what events are returned, their attributes, and the source. It lacks details on return structure (e.g., result count, fields always present) but is largely complete for a filtered search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'keyword' indirectly via examples in the schema, but does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. No new meaning is provided about the 'limit' or 'query' parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses specific verbs ('search', 'upcoming') and resource ('student organization events on BoilerLink') and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_events and academic_calendar by mentioning 'student org' events, time, room, host org, and the source. It clearly separates from the 'official university calendar'.

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 states the tool is for 'upcoming student organization events' and notes it's 'distinct from the official university calendar', giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives (e.g., search_events for academic events) as a counter-recommendation.

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