unw_registration_window

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares READ-ONLY, that it never registers/adds/drops/withdraws, the timezone for timestamps, and the raw_text reporting requirement for parse_status=unknown. Missing only ancillary traits such as auth prerequisites or caching/freshness of the window data.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the READ-ONLY scope, then the term branching, then the return payload, then the hard constraint. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact with no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does describe the returned row fields (raw_text, parse_status values, Chicago start/end, seconds-until-opening, countdown), which is what an agent needs. The only shortfall is the undocumented `term` string format.

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% and the schema only says `term: string|null` with no description, so the description must compensate. It does explain the two behaviors (specific term vs current+next), but never states the expected term identifier format (e.g., Banner term codes) or that it should come from unw_terms, leaving the agent to guess the string shape.

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 resource (registration time-ticket window(s)) and a specific behavior (look up the window for a term, or the current/next selectable term). The closing line 'It NEVER registers, adds, drops or withdraws' implicitly separates it from the mutation siblings like unw_register_preview and unw_banner_plan_add, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 `term` vs no-`term` branches give clear call-time context, but that is parameter usage rather than when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over unw_terms, unw_remaining or unw_register_preview, so the selection logic is left to inference.

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