get_class_timetable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' plus 'can show any class at the school' conveys read-only scope and that access is not restricted to the student's own class, and the defaults describe fallback behavior. However, it says nothing about permissions, invalid class-name handling, or range limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then scope, then use cases, then a clean Args block. The 'Useful for...' list is longer than strictly needed but each item maps to a real scenario, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. All three parameters are covered with formats and defaults, and the discovery path (list_classes) is given. Only error/edge-case behavior is absent, which is a minor gap for a read-only fetch.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does, documenting all three parameters with the YYYY-MM-DD format, example class names, and semantic defaults (student's own class, today, start + 4 days). It notably out-documents the schema, whose defaults are empty strings. No constraints on maximum range or invalid input are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a class timetable') and immediately scopes it against the obvious sibling by noting it 'Can show any class at the school, not just the student's own' — which is the distinction from get_timetable. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (religious instruction, split groups, comparing schedules, checking a friend's class) and routes to list_classes for discovering valid class names. It does not state an explicit when-not condition or name get_timetable directly as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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