ScheduleGetTeacherWeekWorkTime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'weekly' scope but does not disclose details like how the week is defined from fromMonday, what happens if no work time exists, or whether the result follows a particular timezone. It is not contradictory, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter getter, though it could have used the available space to add a bit more context about parameter usage.

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 simple read-only getter with a clear name, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, no explanation of the return shape, and no clarification of semantic constraints on fromMonday or the difference between this tool and similar ScheduleGet* siblings. This leaves noticeable gaps for an agent that must invoke it correctly in uncertain contexts.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions are nearly tautological ('integer (required)', 'string (required)') and add little semantic value. The description does connect teacherId and fromMonday to the teacher's weekly work time, but it does not explain date formatting, timezone handling, or the requirement that fromMonday actually be a Monday.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('a teacher's weekly work time'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ScheduleGetSchoolWeekWorkTime, but the phrase 'teacher's weekly work time' is specific enough to indicate the intended scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ScheduleGetTeacherSchedule or ScheduleGetSchoolWeekWorkTime. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the inferred intent, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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