careers_calendar

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

Even though annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: the 31-day cap, the distinction between legitimate empty data and access_denied, local filtering semantics, and the absence of booking/registration side effects. This meaningfully goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four short, dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes either a scope constraint, an error-interpretation caveat, filtering behavior, or a side-effect disclaimer.

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?

The rich annotations and output schema reduce the burden on the description. The description covers the most important behavioral gotchas and scope limits for a read-only calendar tool. It is slightly incomplete on pagination parameters and single-event retrieval via event_id, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool safely and correctly in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does help with the date-window concept, view variants, and adviser/type refinements, but it leaves event_id, limit, offset, and exact since/until format undocumented. This is partial compensation, not full coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('career calendar or advising availability') and the scope of data (up to 31 days, types/offices, role-dependent events). It avoids being a tautology and is distinct from sibling tools like careers_jobs or blackboard_calendar, though it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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 useful operational guidance: empty results can be valid, access_denied is not the same as no events, adviser/type refinements apply locally to the full date-window response, and the tool does not handle bookings. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as careers_dashboard or blackboard_calendar.

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