Get the personal timetable

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing that each appointment includes course, room, time, and repeat rule, which clarifies what the response contains. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds useful return-shape context without repeating the schema.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with complete annotations and an output schema, this is sufficiently complete. The description covers the essential return semantics, while the schema and annotations handle parameters, safety, and output structure.

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 descriptions for start and end are already clear, including ISO format and inclusive date filtering. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic burden.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resource: 'appointments of the personal timetable.' It also enumerates what each appointment contains, so the tool is clearly distinguishable from the document, profile, achievement, and enrollment siblings.

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 gives clear context: this is for reading a personal timetable. No sibling tool appears to offer timetable data, so explicit alternative/exclusion language is not strictly necessary. Still, it does not state an explicit 'when not to use' condition.

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