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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable scoping (upcoming, personal/linked child, club membership) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral trait; this is acceptable given the annotations but not richer than a 3.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and then the scope. It earns its place and is easy to scan.

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 tool is simple and the annotations already signal safe read-only behavior, but the absence of an output schema and zero parameter documentation leaves gaps around the return shape and the semantics/format of branch_id and week_start. The description is minimally viable but not complete.

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 compensate for the three parameters. It only hints at child_id via 'linked child' and says nothing about what branch_id refers to or what format week_start must take, leaving required parameters ambiguous.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and a clear resource ('upcoming classes'), and it scopes the operation to 'me or a linked child in a club I belong to.' This differentiates it from siblings like list_public_classes and list_my_subjects without needing to open the schema.

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 intended use case is implied: call it when the user wants their own or a linked child's upcoming classes. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer from sibling names when to prefer list_public_classes or list_my_subjects.

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