Export Course Schedule (.ics)

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial extra behavior: Europe/Istanbul timezone, weekly recurrence spanning first-to-last class day, holidays not excluded, the status='term_dates_required' failure mode, and that it returns text without writing a file.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with what the tool builds before edge-case handling. It runs long across several sentences, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information, so little is wasted.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't enumerate returns, yet it still explains the 'ics', 'skipped', and 'missing_crns' outputs and the failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does: crns drive weekly meetings, department_codes define the scanned departments, and term_start/term_end are the first/last day of classes. Only program_type is left unexplained, a minor gap.

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?

States a precise verb and artifact ('Build an iCalendar (.ics) document') from a specific source (weekly meetings of the given CRNs, public OBS course schedule). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling export_exam_schedule_ics and from read-only schedule viewers.

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?

Provides actionable context: no login required, and when term_start/term_end are omitted the academic calendar only covers the displayed month, so the agent should ask the user for dates rather than guess. It does not explicitly compare itself to the exam-schedule export sibling, but the operating guidance is clear.

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