List school news

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: pinned bulletins are always included regardless of limit, archived items appear only with include_older and then as titles only, and an 'unavailable' result means the account is not shown bulletins, not that there are none. That last point prevents a serious misreading of an empty result.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core ordering behavior is front-loaded. It leans toward telegraphic phrasing (nested parentheses, the Finnish term, the raw JSON-shaped 'unavailable: ["news"]') that costs slightly more parsing effort than a plainer sentence would.

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 three-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, inclusion rules, the archived/titles-only caveat, error semantics, and the hand-off to the read tool. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret an empty or unavailable response.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the limit caps dated bulletins while pinned ones always come through, and that include_older yields archived:true entries that are titles only until read. The remaining gap is a lack of explicit guidance on the student parameter (e.g. multi-child accounts), which the schema already handles adequately.

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?

Names the specific resource (school bulletins / tiedotteet) and states exactly what is returned and in what order: newest dated first, then pinned ones. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling wilma_read_news, so an agent can pick between listing and reading without opening either 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?

Explicit routing: 'Use wilma_read_news for the full text and attachments' tells the agent when not to use this tool and which alternative to pick. The include_older clause and the unavailable: ["news"] note further define the conditional cases where this tool does or does not return data.

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