public_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral details beyond the schema: the tool uses a legacy -login.edookit.net base URL and requires no authentication. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation. It could add return-format details, but these are not necessary for a simple public listing.

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 contain exactly the required information: the action and the key operational context (legacy URL, no auth). No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 three-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, and base URL. It does not describe the response format or date inclusivity, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 applies. The description's 'time range' phrase groups from/to semantically but does not add detail beyond what the schema already documents; the ical boolean is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List public school events') and adds a clear temporal scope ('in a time range'). It unambiguously identifies what the tool does and is distinct from the attendance, lessons, payments, and direct_attendance siblings.

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 makes the intended use concrete: listing public school events within a time range. It also notes that no authentication is required, an important context for an agent deciding to call this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the explicit when-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

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