get_degree_class_timetable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which set the safety expectation. The description adds 'agrega sus centros sin mezclar planes,' providing a hint of aggregation behavior, though it is vague and under-specified. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the added context is limited beyond what annotations already convey.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('consulta el horario de la titulación'). It is efficient with no wasted words. However, the cryptic phrase 'agrega sus centros sin mezclar planes' could be clearer, slightly reducing precision while maintaining conciseness.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a request, what response to expect, or any constraints (e.g., required fields, format, or defaults). Even with annotations indicating a read-only, idempotent operation, an agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional information.

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%, meaning the schema does not explain any parameters, and the description mentions none of the 8 parameters (degree_url, course_number, academic_year, semester, program_id, group_codes, date_in_week, subject_query). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents without guidance on what values to provide or how parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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 the verb 'consulta' (query) and the resource 'horario de la titulación' (degree timetable), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It adds a qualifier about 'agrega sus centros sin mezclar planes' (aggregates centers without mixing plans), which hints at a distinguishing behavior, but the phrasing is ambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from personal timetable siblings like get_my_class_timetable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_degree_timetables or get_my_class_timetable. The description implies the scope (degree-level timetable) but doesn't state conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient for clear selection.

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