iis_get_omissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (total hours, absences by reason, monthly statistics), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting optionality/defaults for term.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the parameter, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information not available elsewhere in the structured fields.

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 lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return contents. The only real gap is what happens when term is not supplied (aggregate across all terms?), which an agent would need to know.

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 is 0%, so the sole parameter 'term' is otherwise undocumented. The description compensates by defining it as the semester number and giving a concrete example (term=6), which is exactly the missing semantics. It does not state the behavior when term is omitted.

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 a specific verb+resource: retrieving a student's class-absence statistics, and even enumerates what the statistics contain (total hours, unjustified absences, monthly breakdown). It is unmistakably distinct from the grade/markbook/profile siblings, but it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the specific resource (query a student's absence stats, optionally per semester), and the term parameter's purpose is shown by example. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to any alternative tool, so this is minimum-viable rather than strong routing guidance.

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