kreta_week_schedule

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover basic safety. It confirms a read-only retrieval and adds the 'institutional weekly' scope, but gives no further behavioral detail such as date-range handling or pagination. There is no contradiction with 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, compact sentence with no filler and front-loads the object and action. It is concise and well-structured, though the sparse content is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 sibling ambiguity and four undocumented parameters, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain how this differs from kreta_timetable, what child means, or how the date range behaves. The output schema and annotations help, but the tool-set context is still under-specified.

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 0% and the description is completely silent about child, limit, start_date, and end_date. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, so an agent must guess the meaning and expected formats of the parameters.

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 identifies a specific operation — retrieving the institutional weekly timetable — with a clear verb (lekérése) and a specific resource (intézményi heti órarendi beosztás). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like kreta_timetable, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus kreta_timetable or kreta_timetable_item. The phrase 'institutional weekly timetable' weakly implies a use case, but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions.

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