Уроки и расписание

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds behavioral context about the unmarked filter (only for completed lessons) and type filter, but doesn't go further—no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or other data handling. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description's contribution is modest.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the special filters highlighted concisely. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition. The structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: it doesn't explain pagination (page/limit), the meaning of status values, or the response format. It covers the core use case but omits details that an agent might need for correct invocation, such as sorting or default bounds. Adequate for a simple list tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 67%, so some parameters (page, limit, status) lack descriptions. The description adds crucial meaning to 'unmarked' and 'type', explaining their exact semantics beyond the schema's bare descriptors. This compensates for the gaps and helps an agent use these parameters correctly.

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's function: listing lessons within a date period with filters by teacher, contract, and status. It also highlights two specific use cases (unmarked and type=TRIAL) that distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_enrollments or list_trial_scores. The verb 'Уроки за период' implies listing lessons, and the mention of filters makes the resource and action explicit.

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 provides context for when to use specific filters (unmarked=true for unclosed lessons, type=TRIAL for trial lessons) but never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives or states when not to use it. It doesn't mention any sibling tool or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer from the title and sibling names. This is adequate but not exemplary.

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