lessons_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the return content (actual vs scheduled state per lesson) and 'optional filters,' but it does not mention date requirement, pagination, ordering, or error handling. This is partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the key return characteristic. Every clause adds value; no redundant or promotional language.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It states the return type (actual and scheduled state per lesson) and date scope, but does not specify whether date is effectively required (the schema marks all params optional), nor any response envelope or pagination behavior. This leaves some ambiguity for agent invocation.

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 input schema already documents all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description only adds 'optional filters,' which does not add meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a well-defined resource ('lessons (timetable) for a given day'), and further distinguishes itself from siblings like changed_timetable by stating it returns both actual (with substitutions) and scheduled state per lesson. The scope is immediately clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings such as changed_timetable or direct_attendance_lessons. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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