indico_get_timetable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is flat, sorted by start time, and entry shape varies by kind. It does not mention pagination or size limits, but for a read-only listing this is solid added context.

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, front-loaded with the action and result shape, then the field contract. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does by explaining ordering and the entry_id linkage to mutation tools. Minor gaps remain around instance scoping and result size, but nothing critical is missing for a read tool.

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 event_id and instance are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no scoping, filtering, or instance-selection guidance), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get an event's timetable') and adds a distinguishing property: a flat list returned in start order, which separates it from hierarchical views. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like indico_get_event or indico_list_contributions, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The only routing signal is downstream: entry_id is called out as the input for indico_move_timetable_entry / indico_unschedule_timetable_entry, which implies usage but never states the condition that should select this tool over alternatives.

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