get_student_timetable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the multi-school fan-out and one-result-per-school behavior, the side effect of switching to (and back from) the student account when logged in as a parent, and the shape of the return. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or caching notes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 core purpose and lookup keys are front-loaded, and the follow-on sentences about discovery scope and account switching are relevant. The paragraph is slightly dense in the parenthetical scope explanation, but no sentence is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers a lot: what is returned, the per-school multiplicity, and the account-switch side effect. The main gap is the undocumented date_str parameter, which an agent would need to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains name-based lookup and the subdomain scope well, but never mentions the date_str parameter at all, and it refers to 'person_id' while the schema's key is 'student_id' — a naming mismatch that could confuse an agent mapping the lookup key to the argument.

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 ('Get a student's timetable') and immediately scopes it as student-targeted, which separates it from siblings like get_my_timetable and get_timetable. It also names the two accepted lookup keys (first/last name OR person_id), so an agent can tell what resource is being fetched and for whom.

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?

It describes what happens when subdomain is omitted and notes the parent-account behavior, which implies when the tool is useful. However it never explicitly says when to prefer this over find_student, scan_students, get_timetable, or get_my_timetable, nor when subdomain should be supplied, leaving routing to inference.

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