Lesson schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what a lesson entry contains, how many days 'week' spans, or what happens when no lessons exist. It is essentially a restatement of the available scopes.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the scope enumeration is front-loaded. The only weakness is the absence of a leading verb, making it read more like a feature label than an action statement.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only tool this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema the description should hint at the shape of a lesson entry (subject, time, group) and clarify the default behavior (schema says default 'week'). It leaves the agent guessing about the return payload.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's scope list mirrors 'when'/'date'/'weekday' values already documented in the schema, including the override precedence, without adding syntax, defaults, or student-filtering semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 names the resource (lessons) and enumerates the exact time scopes it resolves: today, next school day, this week, specific date, next weekday occurrence. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wilma_gradebook or wilma_homework, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns'/'lists'.

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?

It implies when the tool applies via the enumerated scopes, but gives no guidance on choosing between the time modes (which parameter wins, what 'week' means) and no mention of alternatives like wilma_upcoming_exams for exam dates. The agent must infer routing entirely from the parameter schema.

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