Рабочее расписание

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by adding crucial behavioral details: date semantics ('Пустые даты = сегодня; date_to включительно'), timezone handling (employee timezone, UTC conversion, office timezones, MYT_TZ override), and the performance implication (one day equals one kairos request, limiting range to 14 days). These context-rich disclosures help the agent understand expected behavior and potential side effects, with no contradiction to the 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 moderately long but each sentence serves a purpose: it front-loads the core purpose, then delves into date semantics, timezone handling, and sibling tool pointers. It is well-structured in short paragraphs, though slightly dense. It avoids fluff and repetition, earning a high score, but is not as terse as the top-tier example.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description thoroughly covers usage scope, date interpretation, timezone adjustments, and range limitations, making it quite complete for a read-only calendar query tool. The only notable gap is the undefined 'limit' parameter, which prevents a perfect score. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for safe and correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It partially does for date parameters by explaining 'date_to включительно' and accepting relative dates like 'завтра'/'послезавтра', and 'Пустые даты = сегодня' clarifies default behavior. However, the 'limit' parameter is never explained, leaving its semantics ambiguous. The description adds meaning for some params but not all, resulting in a baseline-ish score.

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 identifies the tool as 'Рабочее расписание из MyT' (work schedule from MyT), clearly indicating the resource and source, and explicitly states it is NOT the bank, which distinguishes it from other corporate tools. While there is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the context and subsequent references to calendar_event and calendar_respond imply that this tool provides the schedule list. It effectively differentiates from siblings by pointing to them for further actions.

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 explicit usage guidance: it mentions 'Дальше: calendar_event(id) — участники, ссылка на созвон, повестка; calendar_respond(id, ...) — ответить' to direct the agent to alternative tools for follow-up actions. It also explains the 14-day range limit and advises to call again with an offset, and provides information about timezone override via MYT_TZ. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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