ScheduleGetPupilSchedule

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the useful scoping behavior of fetching a schedule over a date range, but it does not disclose response format, filtering semantics, or timezone handling. This is comparable to a basic read operation with modest additional context.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the date-range scope immediately, which makes it easy for an agent 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?

With six parameters, three optional filters, no output schema, and many sibling scheduling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The description does not explain what the optional body parameters do, how the date range is interpreted, what the returned schedule contains, or how this relates to teacher or school schedule retrieval.

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 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The schema entries for required parameters are mostly tautological ('string (required)'), and optional parameters only have terse labels like 'Идентификатор группы' and 'Часовой пояс', but the description does not compensate for or clarify these.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a pupil's schedule for a date range.' It clearly differentiates from sibling schedule tools like ScheduleGetTeacherSchedule and ScheduleGetSchoolSchedule by naming the pupil as the subject. This is enough for an agent to identify the correct operation.

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 tool's use case is implied by 'pupil's schedule', which signals when this tool is appropriate versus teacher or school schedule tools. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, and no mention of when optional bodyGroupId, bodyTeacherId, or bodyTimezone should be supplied.

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