learnus_get_weekly_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it filters out informational/completed/optional/unknown items and warns that calendar entries alone do not prove an unfinished task, which shapes how results should be interpreted.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the guidance, and each sentence carries usable information. It runs long (five sentences) with some repetition across the trigger/exclusion clauses, but no sentence is pure 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?

For a read-only, idempotent query tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description covers purpose, invocation triggers, exclusions, and result-interpretation caveats. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing.

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%, with 'from', 'to', and 'courseId' fully documented including Asia/Seoul date semantics and Moodle course ID lookup. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or defaults, so the 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 specific verb and resource ('gets actionable Yonsei LearnUs coursework') with clear scope (current or requested week) and enumerates the item types returned (assignments, deadlines, incomplete learning, attendance). No sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation from overlapping tools like learnus_upcoming or learnus_get_learning_overview is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly designates itself as the default LearnUs tool, gives a positive trigger condition (coursework/classes/assignments/deadlines even without the keyword LearnUs), and states a negative exclusion (unrelated personal to-do/calendar questions, or treating informational/completed/optional/unknown items as required). This is near-ideal when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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