generate_schedules

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so this adds real value: hard constraints reject schedules, search is explicitly bounded, and results may carry 'verified and provisional counts' and 'unknown scores'. The 'legacy preferences remain soft' note flags a deprecated-but-tolerated path, which is useful behavioral context.

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 purpose is reasonably front-loaded, but the prose is dense and cryptic, with fragment-like sentences ('Verified and provisional counts, unknown scores, and bounded search are explicit.') that read more like spec shorthand than an agent-facing summary.

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 6-parameter, nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description covers the ranking/constraint/preferences behavior but never explains return values or the core required inputs (term, course_codes). It is adequate on the configurable side and thin on the I/O side.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it clarifies that ranking.mode selects six VSB sorts or local objectives, tie_breakers are ordered, constraints are hard rejects, and preferences are deprecated-soft. It says nothing about term, course_codes, or max_results, leaving several low-coverage parameters undocumented in both places.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('enumerate non-conflicting combinations') that maps to the name generate_schedules and is distinguishable from check_conflicts (which only validates a fixed set). However, the 'VSB component bundles' jargon is never explained, so the resource is only partially clear to a newcomer.

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 explains mechanics (hard constraints, ranking modes) but never says when to reach for this tool instead of the siblings search_courses, get_sections, or check_conflicts. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance at all.

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