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

The readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are newest first, and days without recording are omitted rather than treated as “all present.” It does not discuss pagination, limits, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded with the resource and scope. Every sentence contributes useful information, including the important caveat about unrecorded days.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the returned content, ordering, and the critical missing-days caveat. It remains incomplete on parameter selection between class and class_id, but otherwise covers what an agent needs to interpret the results.

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 description says the list is “einer Klasse” but does not explain how to supply the class, whether class or class_id should be used, or what happens if neither is provided. The schema describes the class-name alternative, but class_id is undocumented and the description adds no further meaning.

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 that the tool returns an absence list for a class, including the days where “Wer fehlt?” was used, the missing children, and per-child absence counts. It does not explicitly differentiate this read-only historical list from related siblings such as set_attendance, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what the list contains but gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is inferable from the name and content, but the description itself does not provide actionable usage guidance.

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