schedule_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the data is 'parsed from the current Minute-x-Minute,' which implies a read-only operation, and describes the optional query filter. However, it does not mention error handling, performance, or what happens if the day or event is invalid. This is adequate but not rich.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean three-line argument list. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and all parameter semantics clearly. Minor gaps like edge cases or prerequisites are not critical for this simple read tool, so it is reasonably complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: day lists accepted values, event provides an example code, and query explains its filter behavior with examples. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 the tool provides a 'Timeline for one event day, parsed from the current Minute-x-Minute,' specifying the operation (timeline retrieval) and the resource (a specific event day from a named source). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like event_overview or list_events, which likely provide different perspectives.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a timeline for a specific event day. It gives clear context (one event day, parsed from Minute-x-Minute) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. That fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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