unw_offering_matrix

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses the returned shape (section counts, open counts, instructors per term), which implies a read-only analytical call, but it never states that explicitly and says nothing about the 'refresh' flag, caching, data staleness, or cost, all of which matter for a term-spanning aggregate.

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: output semantics come first, then accepted input formats, then the usage rule. The 'Omit courses…' sentence is the one line that does not earn its place because its meaning is not recoverable.

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 and no annotations, the description must stand alone. It covers return contents and input formats reasonably, but leaves the mutation/refresh behavior and the empty-courses case ambiguous, which matters for a tool meant to gate a downstream recommendation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for 'courses' by giving concrete accepted forms ('CYS 4245', 'ATTRIBUTE NATS', 'DAL *'), but the 'refresh' parameter is completely undocumented and the sentence 'Omit courses for every unmet requirement target' is garbled enough that the null/default behavior remains unclear.

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+resource ('offering pattern per course/attribute across every observed term') and enumerates the exact classification output (every-term, fall-only, spring-only, summer-only, never observed) plus counts. An agent can tell this apart from lookups like unw_course or unw_search without opening any 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?

Gives a clear situational trigger: 'Use this before proposing a course for a future term.' No explicit when-not conditions and no named alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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