Class and teachers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral content on top. It discloses that role labels come 'as Wilma names it', that teacher lists mirror Wilma's message-recipient list, that the subject list is scoped to this and next week's timetable and is empty when none, and that other staff are omitted. Return-shape details (field names, nesting) are still absent, which keeps it below 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?

It is a single dense sentence plus a short routing sentence, front-loaded with the returned resources and ending with the sibling cross-reference. Nothing is redundant, though the main sentence is long and stacks four clauses, which slightly taxes parsing compared with splitting the supervisor and teacher groups.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the role-naming convention, the temporal scope of subject data, the empty condition, and the main exclusion. It leaves the concrete response structure (field names, whether teachers and supervisors are separate arrays) unspecified, which is the only material gap.

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 100% and the single 'student' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-all-children behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description implies per-child scoping through 'Each child's class' but adds no accepted formats, ambiguity handling, or name-vs-number behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 exact resources returned: the child's class (e.g. 9A), class teacher, other supervisors with their Wilma role label, and the child's own teachers with per-subject scope. It explicitly carves out the boundary against the sibling wilma_schedule ('Lessons with times and rooms are in wilma_schedule') and states that other school staff are excluded, so an agent can distinguish it from the schedule and gradebook tools without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear use context (who teaches this child and in what role/subject) and routes the agent to an alternative (wilma_schedule) for lesson times and rooms, plus an explicit exclusion for non-teaching staff. It stops short of a full when/when-not comparison against other plausible siblings such as wilma_account or wilma_grades, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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