kreta_timetable

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the default ±7-day range and the date format, which is useful, but it does not explain how limit or child affect the request or how the date bounds are resolved when only one date is provided.

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 compact sentence that leads with the purpose and uses a parenthetical for the default behavior. It contains no filler or redundancy, and the key scoping information 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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so those do not need to be repeated. However, the description omits guidance on child and limit parameters, so an agent cannot fully understand all inputs from the description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it only addresses the date-range semantics. The child and limit parameters are not described, leaving meaningful gaps even though their names and defaults provide some self-evident meaning.

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 action (retrieval) and resource (timetable) with a date-range scope, and specifies the expected YYYY-MM-DD format and default ±7 days. It is distinct enough from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like kreta_timetable_item or kreta_week_schedule.

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 clear context: use this tool to fetch the timetable for a date range, with a default range of ±7 days. It does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the stated purpose gives sufficient context for basic selection.

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