Omiss Net Schedule

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 enumerates returned fields, notes the next_utc_note fallback for winter-only nets, and explains UTC day-boundary implications. It does not explicitly state permissions or side effects, but 'Get' and the returned data strongly imply a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with the verb and resource, then follows with a useful UTC caveat and a structured return summary. The return summary is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it remains compact and every sentence adds practical context.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the schedule contents, UTC quirks, and special return conditions. The only missing piece is routing guidance versus siblings, which is a separate usage-guidelines concern.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description references as_of_utc and next_utc as output fields rather than inputs, so no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'OMISS net schedule' with a detailed enumeration of contents (bands, times, holiday info, next run). It clearly distinguishes this from a live on-air tool by content, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as omiss_nets_on_air or omiss_statehood_schedule.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives are provided. The only usage advice concerns interpreting UTC output with next_utc and as_of_utc, not selecting this tool over sibling schedule/on-air tools.

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