get_timetable_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavior disclosure. It mentions what happens for days with no published data (empty lessons list), which is useful, but does not specify return type beyond 'dict', or any potential auth requirements or rate limits. For a read-only tool, this is partly adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with high information density. Key information (range, inclusivity, target types) is front-loaded, and the edge case is addressed compactly. No fluff.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the return structure (dict keyed by date, each value a `get_timetable` result) and the empty-data edge case. It lacks explicit mention of `subdomain` semantics and `target_type` accepted values, which are necessary for correct invocation, but given the complexity (5 params), it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that `target_type` and `target_id` identify the entity, and dates are inclusive and formatted (YYYY-MM-DD), which adds meaning beyond the plain schema properties. However, it does not clarify the allowed values for `target_type` or whether `subdomain` is used for multi-tenant access, leading to some gaps.

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 states the action ('Get timetable') and scope ('for a target... for every day between start_date and end_date'), and distinguishes it from the sibling `get_timetable` by explicitly framing it as a range query that returns per-day results.

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 explains the range behavior (inclusive dates, per-day dict) but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus `get_timetable` (though the difference is implied). No exclusions or alternative references beyond the implicit contrast.

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