get_my_class_timetable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint (true) and destructiveHint (false), so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that it relies on the local profile and does not ask for identifiers, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like output format or error handling, so it only moderately exceeds the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. It front-loads the key behavior (consult timetable) and adds the distinguishing constraint (uses local profile) in a compact format. No words are wasted.

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?

Given the tool has four optional parameters and no schema descriptions or output schema, the description should provide enough detail to use it correctly. It explains the core purpose but completely omits parameter semantics, which are essential for constructing a correct request. The lack of any return format details further reduces completeness, leaving the description inadequate for a tool with this many parameters.

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 schema has four parameters (semester, date_in_week, academic_year, subject_query) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention any of them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them. This is a critical omission.

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 the tool retrieves a class timetable using the user's local academic profile, and explicitly notes it avoids requiring identifiers. This makes it distinct from tools like get_degree_class_timetable that would need explicit degree identifiers. The verb+resource is specific and actionable.

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 conveys that the tool uses the user's own academic profile, implying it should be used when identifiers are not needed or when querying the authenticated user's timetable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide a clear 'when not to use' statement, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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