upc_timetable_week

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the self-scoped nature ('own courses') and the shape of what comes back, but says nothing about week bounds, empty-week behavior, or what happens for an out-of-range week.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the return contract front-loaded; no filler. The trailing 'by design' adds no information and is the only wasted token.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and the read-only annotations cover the rest of the behavioral surface. The remaining gap is discovery — how an agent obtains valid year/term values — which is a meaningful but not fatal omission for a four-parameter read tool.

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 75% and the three required parameters (year, term, week) carry their own explanations, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — it never connects year/term to the term listing tool or notes the 1–30 week constraint, and session_ref is undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Read one week's own courses') and scopes it to the caller's own schedule, which separates it from the range-based sibling upc_timetable_range. The phrase 'by design' is vague, but the enumerated return fields (names/teachers/rooms) sharpen the intent.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one week' suggests a single-week query, but the description never says when to pick this over upc_timetable_range or upc_timetable_terms, nor that year/term values come from the terms tool. An agent must infer the boundary conditions from the sibling names alone.

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