ic_get_schedule

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

With readOnlyHint=true already in annotations, the description still adds substantial behavioral detail: it explains that the response covers every term and is not date-filtered, and the view parameter description discloses exactly what 'compact' and 'full' do, including that 'compact strips image/avatar URLs' and that the server deliberately does no field projection because it lacks verified knowledge of which Infinite Campus fields matter. This goes well beyond the annotation and helps the agent predict response behavior.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second immediately explains the unfiltered nature and tells the caller how to handle the result. It is front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the response contains ('every course with its section placements') and that each placement carries its term, so filtering is the caller's responsibility. Combined with the detailed view parameter description, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination, error cases, or output structure, but these are not critical for a simple schedule fetch.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema descriptions are rich—especially the view parameter, which explains compact vs. full semantics. The district and studentId descriptions also cross-reference source tools (ic_list_districts, ic_list_students), which is helpful. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add further parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 student's class roster') and specifies the exact scope: 'every course with its section placements, across every term of the current enrollment.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling list tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The 'Not filtered by date or term' clause helps set expectations about the tool's scope, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Not filtered by date or term — each placement carries its own term, so narrow the result yourself' tells the agent that this tool returns all terms and the agent must filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. There is no reference to sibling tools or a 'use this when' / 'use that when' pattern.

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