Расписание по RUZ id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety needs no restating. The description still adds workflow context the annotations cannot convey: the id must come from ruz_find_person and the period defaults to today's start, which is real value beyond the structured hints.

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 front-loaded sentence covering purpose, entities, the id prerequisite, and the date window, with no filler. Slight redundancy in restating 'daysAhead days starting from startDate' already defined by the schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations are rich, so the description need not explain return values; it correctly focuses on the id prerequisite and default period. It leaves the relationship to ruz_get_my_schedule unstated, which is the one gap for a read tool with a sibling that overlaps in purpose.

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 100% and all five parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes daysAhead/startDate semantics and the default start of today, adding little syntax or edge-case meaning on top of 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?

Names a specific verb (get schedule) and the exact resources (student, lecturer, group, auditorium at HSE) keyed by RUZ id. It explicitly routes the id lookup to the sibling ruz_find_person, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without opening a schema.

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 prerequisite chain is spelled out: obtain the id via ruz_find_person with the same type, then call this tool. It does not say when to prefer the other sibling, ruz_get_my_schedule, over this id-based lookup, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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