get_exam_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the login prerequisite, the NOT_AUTHENTICATED error contract, and the env-var credential fallback. It stops short of describing the response shape or behavior for an invalid semesterId.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then the auth-recovery flow, then the parameter note — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense but slightly run-on, packing three separate auth steps into one sentence.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the auth requirement, and the failure-recovery path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without inspecting other tools.

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% and the schema already documents semesterId including the 'omit for current semester' default. The description's 'semesterId is optional; omit for current semester' repeats the schema rather than adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (exam schedule) with an explicit enumeration of the payload: CAT1/CAT2/FAT dates, timings, venues, seat numbers, row/col. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_timetable, get_marks, and get_calendar.

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?

Gives a concrete recovery path when the response contains NOT_AUTHENTICATED (call get_captcha, then login, then retry) and explains the credential fallback. It does not, however, contrast this tool with near-neighbors such as get_timetable or get_calendar, so sibling selection is left to the purpose statement.

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