Get Exam Schedule

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the matching priority (SIS course_code+분반 exact match, then lecture-name fallback flagged via matched_by) and the failure contract (reason=EXACT_MATCH_NOT_FOUND plus a candidates list for the caller to decide). The refresh+term network side effect is also stated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by omission behavior, matching logic, failure handling, and the refresh caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the density is high enough that it reads as a compact spec rather than a quick orientation.

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, yet the description still explains the matched_by discriminator and the EXACT_MATCH_NOT_FOUND/candidates failure shape, which is what an agent needs to interpret a result. Nothing required to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: omitting course_id/query widens results, course_id changes the matching algorithm, and refresh only works when term is supplied.

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 ('저장된 중간/기말시험 시간표를 조회합니다') and the '[로컬]' marker distinguishes it from the network-syncing sibling eclass_sync_exam_schedules. An agent can tell it apart from the sync and syllabus 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?

Gives concrete conditional usage: omitting course_id/query returns the full term/exam_type schedule, specifying course_id triggers SIS exact-match with a normalization fallback, and refresh=true requires term to sync first. It stops short of naming sibling tools explicitly as alternatives, but the conditions for each mode are clear.

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