Class schedule

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly focuses on added traits: the default 7-day window, Moscow-time basis for dates, and that days with no classes are omitted from results. The last point is genuine return-shape disclosure with no output schema to carry it, though format of individual entries remains unstated.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns first, then the default window, then a filtering caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant fact (what resource) is front-loaded.

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 two optional parameters, the description adequately covers scope, default behaviour, and result omission. It does not say what an entry contains (time, room, teacher) or how the personal scope is resolved, but nothing required to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the default range applied when date_from/date_to are omitted — information the schema cannot express since both parameters are optional. It stops short of restating the 62-day span constraint, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific resource — the personal ITMO class timetable — and enumerates the event types it covers (lectures, practices, labs, exams, consultations). This cleanly separates it from itmo_get_sport_schedule, though it never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives useful default behaviour (next 7 days starting today) which implies the no-argument use case, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to sibling tools like itmo_get_sport_schedule or itmo_get_grades. Usage is only implied.

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