Absences and feedback summary

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 value beyond that by disclosing the default scope (school year, or from a given date) and by indicating the return shape is per-kind counts rather than individual notes — critical since there is no output schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, with the time-window rule trailing. The parenthetical category list is long but earns its place by making the aggregation concrete; nothing is filler.

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?

All parameters are optional and the tool is read-only, so the call surface is simple. However, with no output schema the description should say more about the response — whether omitting 'student' returns a per-child breakdown or one flat set of counts is left ambiguous, which affects how an agent interprets and presents results.

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 every parameter is documented in-schema with format and defaults. The description only restates the date default behaviour already present in the schema and adds nothing about how 'student' affects the aggregation output, so baseline 3 is right.

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 operation and resource: lesson notes aggregated ('counted by kind'), with concrete example categories listed. This distinguishes it in spirit from a flat list tool like wilma_lesson_notes, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the contrast rather than being told it.

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 description implies when to reach for it (you want counts, not records) and explains the default time window, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to wilma_lesson_notes for the raw records or wilma_summary for a broader overview.

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