Get Attendance Summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'get' plus the summary framing implies a safe read-only operation, and the description discloses the shape of the aggregate output. However, it says nothing about whether term filtering is required to get meaningful data, whether missing attendance records affect the percentage, or any auth/permission considerations.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary output (overall percentage) before the secondary breakdown. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness means it also carries no extra guidance.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description does not need to explain return fields or parameter syntax, which keeps it close to adequate. But for a no-annotation tool with zero usage guidance and no mention of the term-scoping behavior, it is only minimally sufficient.

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%, with both 'term' (including the default-32 meaning) and 'detail' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail — notably it never explains that 'detail' expands the output into per-session records — so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 the resource (attendance) and specifies exactly what is returned: an overall percentage plus a per-course breakdown with counts and percentages. It is clearly distinguishable from data-oriented siblings like get_results or get_assignments. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with a sibling 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_timetable or get_courses), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and return description.

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