List AlmaEsami Appelli (Exam Sessions)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable transparency: it states the endpoint is UNVERIFIED, the result carries unverified:true, and the parser tolerates layout changes. It also clarifies 'Read-only: it never books.' 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds unique value: purpose, limitations, and fallback guidance. No fluff.

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 adequately lists what the tool returns (date/time, activity, examiner, type/mode, enrollment window, unverified flag). It also warns about the unverified status. Could mention pagination or error handling, but overall sufficient for a read-only listing 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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described in schema). The description adds context for 'path' (default is UNVERIFIED, provide real route), 'cookies' (authenticated JSESSIONID, fallback chain), and 'session_id' (source from other tools). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 specifies it lists upcoming AlmaEsami appelli (bookable exam sessions) with details like date/time, activity, examiner, type/mode, and enrollment window, and explicitly states it answers 'when can I sit exam X'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's read-only and about bookable sessions.

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 clear context for when to use: to answer when an exam can be taken. It also offers fallback guidance: if it returns nothing, use the exam-plan tool's bookable flags or pass an explicit path. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the read-only nature is clear.

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