Lesson notes and absences

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by describing the kind of content returned (absence, lateness, praise, missing books or homework) and that teacher wording is quoted verbatim when available, which tells the agent what to expect in the payload. Return shape and date-range semantics of overlapping date/days params are still left implicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and content categories, with scope stated last. The Finnish term 'merkinnät' is a minor addition rather than filler. No wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to carry the content story, and it does list the note categories and the verbatim-quoting behavior. The main gap is the relationship to wilma_lesson_notes_summary, which would resolve ambiguity for an agent choosing between the two.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the YYYY-MM-DD default and the 1-365 range. The description only restates the one-day-or-last-N-days behavior and says nothing about the student filter (the schema note that omitting it returns every child is not echoed). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: teacher-logged lesson notes (merkinnät) covering absences, lateness, and feedback, with the teacher's verbatim words. It is clear what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling wilma_lesson_notes_summary, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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 trailing sentence 'One day (default today) or the last N days' implies the two query modes and their defaults. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus wilma_lesson_notes_summary or wilma_summary, and no note on prerequisites such as being logged in.

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