ivi_fetch_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key constraint (no future dates) and lists the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication requirements or potential rate limits, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a behavioral constraint, and separate Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes value, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to locate key information. It could be slightly more detailed on parameter interaction, but overall it is efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists return fields. However, it lacks explicit mention that eip_id and eip_password are required, does not specify whether the date parameters are mandatory or how they interact, and omits details about pagination or result size limits. These gaps leave some context incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the 'date' parameter as a single date in YYYY-MM-DD format and 'start_date/end_date' as a range. However, it does not explain the purpose or format for 'eip_id' and 'eip_password', nor does it clarify whether 'date' and 'start_date/end_date' are mutually exclusive or if both can be provided.

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 it downloads IVI schedule from CKS, with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the scope by prohibiting future date queries, and the return field list further clarifies what the tool outputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_opd_schedule or surgery schedules, which target different scheduling domains.

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 provides usage context such as the date formats and the ability to query a single date or a range, plus the explicit constraint that future dates are not allowed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like surgery_doc_schedule_list or doc_opd_schedule, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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