get_class_sessions

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by detailing the IANA time zone assumption, the precise meaning of occupancy ('occupied places, not attendance or booking eligibility'), the untrusted nature of source names, and the all-or-nothing failure behavior ('All days must succeed; errors return no schedule'). This is rich, non-annotation behavioral context.

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?

Six sentences, each carrying a distinct fact, and the purpose is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition; everything earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers all essential behavioral and semantic aspects for a 5-parameter read-only tool: date range, time zone, filter semantics, occupancy definition, trust boundary, and error behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates meaningfully: it explains the inclusive interval for startDate/endDate, the exact-match className filter, and the HH:mm format for startTime. The gymId parameter is only indirectly referenced via 'verified gym,' leaving some ambiguity, but the most important parameters are semantically clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource statement, 'Query an inclusive interval of gym-local calendar dates,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and sets it apart from sibling tools about bookings, account context, and personal activity. The scope (gym, dates, sessions) is concrete and instantly distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, preconditions, or exclusions. The functionality is described, but the agent must infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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