get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior details: it preserves series IDs, occurrence IDs, and source coverage, and states that fallback gaps are explicit. It also mentions the max range of 366 days. This goes beyond 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral details (preserving IDs, explicit fallback gaps) are efficiently stated. Every sentence adds value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what is returned. It mentions the preservation of series IDs, occurrence IDs, and source coverage, and explicitly notes fallback gaps. It doesn't describe the exact return structure or pagination, but for a read tool with openWorldHint, this is reasonably complete. It could mention the response format (e.g., a list of events), but it's adequate for an agent to understand the nature of the result.

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 only 33% (only courseId has a description). The description adds some parameter meaning by specifying 'explicit ISO timestamp range' and the max duration, which helps interpret the from/to parameters. However, it doesn't detail the exact format beyond what the schema pattern already provides, and it doesn't mention courseId at all. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 the tool reads course calendar events including server-expanded recurring occurrences, with a specific scope (explicit ISO timestamp range of at most 366 days). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from any potential sibling like get_upcoming_deadlines by focusing on calendar events rather than deadlines.

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 implies usage (when you need calendar events in a time range) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There are no direct calendar sibling tools, so the context is clear enough, but it doesn't explicitly guide the agent on when not to use it or what to use instead for other calendar-like needs.

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