timetable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no indication of whose timetable is returned (which child context is required), and no mention of caching, rate limits, or scope of data. The presence of an output schema covers the return shape, but the operational behavior remains opaque.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the week format appended efficiently; nothing is wasted. It borders on under-specification rather than being too long, but by the conciseness measure it is tight.

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 tool with two required identifiers, zero annotation coverage, and zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough to call it correctly — it never explains whose timetable the child_id and organizational_unit_id resolve, nor any scope or permission constraints. The output schema does relieve the description of explaining return values, which prevents a 1.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for the week parameter — the "YYYY-WW" format and the current-week default — but says nothing about the two required parameters (child_id, organizational_unit_id), leaving them entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific resource ("Timeplan/ukesplan") and its scope (an ISO week), which separates it from siblings like absences or scheduling_events. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, so it reads more like a return-value label than an action, but the intent is still clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings (absences, scheduling_events, news_feed), nor any prerequisite or eligibility condition. The only guidance is the week default, which is a parameter detail rather than usage context.

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