render_schedule_widget

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output is an interactive widget rendered directly in the ChatGPT client (Apps SDK / MCP Apps), not plain data, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the interaction detail. No filler, though the parenthetical SDK reference is slightly incidental.

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 required parameters, the description adequately explains that the result is a rendered interactive widget rather than data. It is a bit thin on how the three optional parameters combine (group vs teacher vs date), which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so date, group and teacher are already documented with formats and examples. The description only restates that the widget covers either a schedule or a teacher profile, without clarifying accepted parameter combinations, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: rendering an interactive visual schedule or teacher-profile widget inside the ChatGPT interface (ChatGPT Apps SDK / MCP Apps). That separates it from data-returning siblings like get_group_schedule and get_teacher_schedule, though it never names those siblings explicitly to make the boundary unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool 'allows showing' a card of classes or contacts with interactivity, so an agent can infer it is the UI-rendering counterpart to the data-fetching schedule tools. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or statement of whether data must be fetched first.

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