connects_schedule

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds real value beyond that: per-page date filtering semantics and the non-obvious instruction to continue next_offset even when a filtered page is empty. This prevents an agent from terminating pagination prematurely.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: resource identity, then the two non-obvious behavioral rules. No fluff, no repetition of schema defaults, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the critical pagination and date-window behavior is well covered. However, one of five parameters (calendar) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no statement about which calendar is used by default. An agent would have to guess or probe.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does clarify start/end (ISO format, 31-day window) and offset (continue next_offset), but calendar is never mentioned, and limit's semantics are left entirely to the schema's numeric bounds. Partial compensation at best.

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?

'Student schedule' clearly names the resource returned, distinguishing it at a glance from sibling tools like connects_events, connects_feed, or blackboard_calendar. It lacks an explicit verb ('get', 'list'), but the intent is unambiguous and the resource identity is specific.

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 gives concrete operational direction: how to handle pagination when filtered pages come back empty, that dates must be ISO, and that the filter window is capped at 31 days. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the constraints given are genuinely actionable.

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