get_timetable

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these and adds useful context about substitutions being returned and the 31-day maximum range. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination or error conditions, which are minor given the safety profile already declared.

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, brief sentence in Polish that covers the core purpose, the key constraint, and an output behavior. No filler or redundancy. It is well-structured with the main subject first.

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 read-only getter with all parameters described and safety covered by annotations, the description is sufficient. It mentions the relevant output (timetable with substitutions) and the 31-day limit. Without an explicit output schema, this level of context is adequate, though it could mention that the result is per-student and no pagination is involved.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds a non-obvious constraint not present in the schema: the overall date range must not exceed 31 days. This gives the agent important cross-parameter semantics that would otherwise be missed.

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 clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (child's timetable). It adds a specific constraint (range max 31 days) and notes that substitutions are included, which helps distinguish it from generic calendar tools. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool to compare against, so it lacks a clear differentiator.

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 this is for retrieving a child's schedule and includes a range limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_calendar or get_grades. There are no exclusion criteria or 'when not to use' hints, making it adequate but not strongly guiding.

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