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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the breadth of the aggregation (all classes, absences, screens, templates), though it says nothing about data freshness or result size.

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 compact sentences: content inventory first, usage hint second, with no filler or repetition. Slightly list-like rather than prose, but front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so by enumerating the sections returned. Only minor gaps remain (scoping to the caller's own classes, ordering or truncation behavior).

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this lands at 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter talk and instead spends its words on what the parameterless call yields.

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 names a concrete resource family and enumerates its contents (today's timetable with current/next lesson, absences, events, classes with grade and student count, screens with links, templates), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly an aggregate overview rather than one of the list_* siblings, but it never names a sibling to sharpen that boundary.

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?

'Guter erster Schritt' plus the quoted sample intents ('Was steht an?', 'Bereite meine nächste Stunde vor') give clear, actionable entry-point guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided, which keeps it below a 5.

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