get_exam_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the NOT_AUTHENTICATED → get_captcha → login → retry sequence, the fact that login auto-uses VTOP_USERNAME/VTOP_PASSWORD, and the fallback of asking the user for credentials. It omits return-format/pagination detail, but the enumerated fields largely cover that.

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?

Front-loads the returned data, then the auth fallback chain. Every sentence carries operational weight (what it returns, auth requirement, recovery steps), though the auth instructions are dense enough that the description runs long for a read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it fully covers the auth prerequisite and failure handling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, aside from minor detail on pagination or empty-result behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters (refresh, semesterId) are already fully documented in the schema, including cache behavior. The description's note that semesterId is optional and omitted for the current semester only echoes the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource (get exam schedule) and enumerates exactly what it returns: CAT1/CAT2/FAT dates, timings, venues, seat numbers, row/col. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_marks, get_timetable, and get_semester_grades.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: 'semesterId is optional; omit for current semester' and 'Requires login,' plus an explicit recovery path when auth fails. It doesn't name alternative tools for overlapping needs, but for a single-purpose lookup the when-to-use guidance is otherwise clear.

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