get_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', and does not mention return format, inclusive/exclusive date handling, behavior when no lectures exist, or any side effects. For a read tool this is low risk, but almost no behavioral context is added beyond the basic action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity read tool, the description covers the essential action and scope, and the schema covers parameters completely. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified what exactly is returned (e.g., individual lecture objects, empty handling) and whether the date range is inclusive. This is a minor but real gap.

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 describes both parameters and their YYYY-MM-DD format at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra semantic detail beyond the phrase 'specific date range', which aligns with the parameters but does not enrich them.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('lecture schedule'), and scope ('specific date range'), clearly conveying what the tool does. It is not merely a restatement of the tool name, and the date-range qualifier sets it apart from today/upcoming variants, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'specific date range' implies the tool is for arbitrary ranges rather than today/upcoming, and sibling names reinforce this contrast. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_today_schedule or get_upcoming_schedule, nor any exclusions.

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