Get BIT schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and world-openness. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral constraint 'Whole term only' and the retry guidance, which go beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three short clauses, each carrying distinct functional or operational information. It is front-loaded with the core scope ('Whole term only') and has no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the single optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the remaining necessary context: scope, sibling routing, and a retry caveat. Nothing essential is missing for correct tool selection and 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 fully describes the single optional 'term' parameter, including its format, default, and example. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 title 'Get BIT schedule' and description 'Whole term only' make it clear the tool retrieves a schedule for a full term, distinguishing it from week-based schedule tools. It lacks an explicit verb in the description, but the name and title supply the action and resource.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Whole term only') and directs users to a specific alternative ('for relative weeks use get_week_schedule'). It also adds the operational warning 'browser: do not retry', which is useful guidance for invocation.

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