portal_timetable

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does add view semantics like 'static (permanent)' and 'upcoming events,' which goes beyond the raw enum names. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and then lists the key view distinctions. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every phrase 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?

For a simple read tool with two optional parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. The views are listed and the schema fully covers the parameters, but return value structure, empty results, and any access prerequisites are not mentioned. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'view' parameter by expanding enum names into understandable concepts ('current week,' 'static (permanent),' 'upcoming events,' 'archive'). The 'offset' parameter is not described in prose, but the schema already fully documents it, including its restriction to the 'current' view.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the student timetable.' It also enumerates the available views, making the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource and views are specific enough that an agent can understand what this tool does.

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 gives clear context about when this tool is relevant — whenever a student timetable is needed — and lists the view options. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, but since this is a single focused getter with optional parameters, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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