Get the registrations of a term

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering safety. The description adds the prerequisite and scope ('one term') but doesn't go beyond that; the schema already explains the default behavior for an absent semester_key. With strong annotation coverage, this level of added context is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides essential usage guidance. The most critical information is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the tool's purpose and the one prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention that semester_key is optional, but the schema covers that. Minor gap: the description says 'of one term' without noting the portal default, but this is handled in the schema. Overall, sufficient for a simple 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 100%, with the parameter fully documented: 'Term key such as 2026.2.2, from hisinone_list_semesters. The portal default applies if this is absent.' The description does not add new meaning about the parameter beyond reinforcing the prerequisite, 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 ('Read') and resource ('course and exam registrations of one term'), making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hisinone_list_documents or hisinone_get_timetable, and the reference to hisinone_list_semesters further clarifies its role.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call hisinone_list_semesters first to obtain the term key, which is a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't compare with alternatives, the guidance is sufficient given the tool's narrow scope and only one parameter. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but the precondition makes that implicit.

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