Расписание через ЕЛК

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it works from any network (unlike RUZ) and returns online-class links, which tells the agent about reachability and payload. Auth requirements and rate limits are still unmentioned.

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?

One sentence with an em-dash elaboration; the core promise (schedule via ELK, with online links) is front-loaded and the network-availability note follows. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations rich, and a single fully-described optional parameter, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly. The only soft spot is the unstated relationship to sibling schedule tools (my_today, my_week), though 'основной источник расписания' mostly resolves that.

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 single optional parameter daysAhead is fully documented with default and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g. what the default window means for results), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: fetching a student's class schedule via the ELK API, including the exact endpoint (lk.hse.ru/api/get-myschedule). It also positions the tool against alternatives ('в отличие от RUZ... основной источник расписания'), so an agent can tell what it is and that it is the preferred schedule source.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule: use this when not on the HSE internal network, because RUZ is unreachable from outside, and names it the primary schedule source. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the sibling tools my_today/my_week over this one, leaving a small inference gap.

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