iCal RRULE -> next N occurrences (paid $0.001)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the $0.001 cost, the x402 challenge when unpaid, and the role of x_payment. It also provides a tip about DTSTART, adding practical behavioral context beyond bare parameter listings.

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?

The description is three sentences with a front-loaded payment notice, a precise function statement, and a compact argument list. The tip and payment warning are integrated without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description conveys the core return concept (next N occurrences) and all operational prerequisites such as payment and DTSTART anchoring. It does not elaborate on timezone rendering or error handling, but for a paid tool with five parameters, coverage is solid.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the description only needs to add value. It offers an example RRULE string and clarifies the payment behavior connected to x_payment. The DTSTART tip enriches the rrule parameter semantics, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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's specific action: expanding an iCal RRULE into its next N occurrences, citing RFC 5545. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cron or datemath which handle other time-based operations. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 explains the payment model—pass x_payment to avoid the 402 challenge—and advises including DTSTART for anchored series. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specialized scope makes the intended use clear.

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