Get today's BIT schedule

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

The description adds a concrete behavioral warning beyond the annotations: it may open a browser for school login, and the agent should wait and not retry. This is valuable context that readOnlyHint/openWorldHint do not fully convey. The instruction 'wait, do not retry' is slightly ambiguous, preventing a 5.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical runtime warning follows immediately. Every word 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?

Given there are no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool. The only behavioral nuance an agent needs—possible browser opening and no retry—is explicitly stated.

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 parameters and the schema covers 100% of them, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 description states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('today's classes'), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_week_schedule and get_schedule by anchoring on 'today's'.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving today's classes, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives such as get_week_schedule or get_schedule. The browser/login warning is behavioral guidance, not usage selection guidance.

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