get_pilates_with_neelam_schedule

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

The description discloses the core behavior: it retrieves and returns a structured weekly view, and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not explicitly guarantee no side effects, mention authentication needs, or describe behavior for invalid inputs. This is minimally transparent but adequate for a simple getter.

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 sentence with no filler. The core promise is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete: it names the resource and the return shape, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it lacks detail about what the weekly view contains, whether the tool is read-only, and what defaults or edge cases apply, so an agent must infer some behavior.

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 the schema already documents both studio_id and week_offset, including the required literal value for studio_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('weekly class schedule for Pilates With Neelam'), and an expected return shape ('structured weekly view'). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling get_pilates_with_neelam_classes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage is implied: an agent would use this when it needs the weekly schedule for Pilates With Neelam. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like get_pilates_with_neelam_availability or get_pilates_with_neelam_classes, nor any exclusions.

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