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 states the operation but does not mention what happens on invalid dates, return format, or any edge-case behavior. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious read operation.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical provides context without fluff.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides the core purpose. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations means it should offer more detail about return values or error behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage for the only parameter 'date' is 100%, and its description fully explains acceptable formats. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the time of the first class'. It specifies the resource (first class time) and context ('for drop-off planning'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pickup_time and get_schedule.

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 parenthetical 'for drop-off planning' implies a usage context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. It lacks the explicit alternative naming seen in high-quality examples.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a safe read operation (get), but it does not disclose output format, error handling, or edge cases. For a simple getter, this is basic but incomplete transparency.

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 concise sentence that delivers the essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core function and purpose, though it could mention return format or edge cases for extra clarity.

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 the date parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool gets the time of the last class, with a parenthetical clarifying its purpose (pick-up planning). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_schedule or get_dropoff_time, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'for pick-up planning' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function (get schedule) without mentioning return format, whether this is a read-only operation, or any potential side effects. For a simple get, this is minimal but still lacks transparency beyond the obvious.

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, focused sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but does not clarify what the response contains or edge cases (e.g., holidays, invalid dates). It is adequate for a simple get but leaves some ambiguity.

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% and the date parameter is clearly documented with accepted formats. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating 'specific date', so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets a school schedule for a specific date. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_week_schedule (which covers a week) and get_dropoff_time/get_pickup_time (which target specific times).

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 implied usage is for retrieving a single date's schedule, contrasting with the weekly variant. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites.

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

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 states that it retrieves the schedule but gives no information about the return format, content of the schedule, potential timezone considerations, or any side effects (though it's clearly a read operation). This is a minimal statement.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information: the action and the scope. Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous detail.

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 simple zero-parameter getter, the description is largely sufficient: it states the resource and the time window. It does not describe the structure of the returned schedule, but given the context and sibling names, this may be acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it and what it will receive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that. The schema's 100% coverage of an empty properties object confirms no parameter ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('school schedule') and explicit scope ('entire week (next 7 days)'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_dropoff_time and get_pickup_time, and even from get_schedule by specifying the week-long period.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when a week-long schedule is needed. The phrase '(next 7 days)' provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use get_schedule for a specific day').

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