ic_get_schedule

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. It adds a small behavioral detail (the default date being today), but it does not describe output shape, error behavior, or how view and termFilter affect results. With annotations lowering the bar, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 12-word sentence with the action front-loaded. It contains no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 fully documented schema and the readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient for the obvious invocation path, but without an output schema it does not clarify what fields the schedule response contains. It also relies entirely on the schema to communicate that district and studentId are required and where they come from, making it adequate but not complete on its own.

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%: date, view, district, studentId, and termFilter each have meaningful schema descriptions, including the compact/full semantics for view. The tool description adds no meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a student's class schedule'), and a scoping parameter (date, defaulting to today). This clearly distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling tools like ic_list_assignments, ic_list_grades, and ic_list_school_days, none of which target schedule retrieval.

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 supplies a clear context: use this when you need a student's class schedule for a date, defaulting to today. There is no competing schedule tool among the siblings, so no explicit exclusion is necessary, though it does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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