Get this or a relative week's BIT schedule

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: 'browser may open' and 'do not retry'. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 short sentences carry purpose, output character, a side-effect warning, and a retry instruction with no filler. The most important routing information is front-loaded.

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 single optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers what to call, what kind of output to expect, and the notable side effect. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 week_offset is fully documented with its default, range, and meaning. The description only paraphrases this/next/last week and adds no parameter-specific details, so 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 description clearly identifies the resource (a relative week's BIT schedule) and the action (get/call for this/next/last week), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_today_schedule or get_schedule, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Call for this/next/last week' provides a clear target use case, and 'do not retry' gives explicit invocation guidance. It lacks exclusions or named alternatives, such as pointing to get_today_schedule for today-only schedules, so it is not a 5.

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