get_week_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves the schedule but gives no information about the return format, content of the schedule, potential timezone considerations, or any side effects (though it's clearly a read operation). This is a minimal statement.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information: the action and the scope. Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous detail.

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 simple zero-parameter getter, the description is largely sufficient: it states the resource and the time window. It does not describe the structure of the returned schedule, but given the context and sibling names, this may be acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it and what it will receive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that. The schema's 100% coverage of an empty properties object confirms no parameter ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('school schedule') and explicit scope ('entire week (next 7 days)'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_dropoff_time and get_pickup_time, and even from get_schedule by specifying the week-long period.

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 this tool: when a week-long schedule is needed. The phrase '(next 7 days)' provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use get_schedule for a specific day').

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