get_attendance

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful context: an auth requirement, an env-var credential fallback, and the explicit error-retry sequence. Caching behavior lives in the schema rather than here, which is a minor omission.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the multi-step recovery instructions following. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the credential-fallback sentence is fairly long for an edge case.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (per-course attended/total/percentage). Auth prerequisites and the error path are covered; only pagination/cache specifics are left to the schema.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that semesterId is optional and defaults to the current semester, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource and clarifies scope ('for all courses') plus the returned shape (attended/total/percentage per course), which implicitly separates it from get_attendance_detail and calculate_attendance. It never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Provides a concrete recovery workflow (on NOT_AUTHENTICATED call get_captcha then login then retry) and states that semesterId is optional and omitting it uses the current semester. It does not compare against the sibling attendance tools, so the agent must infer which tool to prefer.

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