schedule_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a non-mutating 'check' action, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid inputs. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose followed by a clearly formatted Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a tool of moderate complexity (multiple courses, semester/year parameters), the description, combined with the presence of an output schema, covers the essential aspects. There is no obvious missing information that would prevent an agent from using the tool effectively.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'codes' with examples, 'semester' with allowed values and default behavior, and 'year' with format and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check meeting times for multiple courses to spot conflicts.' This distinguishes it from siblings like course_detail, which focuses on single course details, and batch_course_details, which likely returns course details without conflict analysis.

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 establishes clear context: use when you need to analyze meeting times across multiple courses to identify conflicts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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