School summary

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: what data is aggregated, that results are per child, the fields included for messages (ids, unread, replyCount), and how missing data is surfaced in an `unavailable` field with a concrete example. This is rich context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contents, followed by a caveat about unavailable data and a usage recommendation. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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?

With no output schema, the description effectively explains the return contents and even notes the `unavailable` field limitation. For a complex aggregate tool with three optional parameters, this provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond implying per-child scope ('per child'), which is adequate but not compensating further.

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 clearly states that this tool returns a daily briefing per child, enumerating the exact data included: lessons, exams, homework, lesson notes, bulletins, and messages. It distinguishes itself from the many granular sibling tools by positioning itself as the best starting point for any school-related question.

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 explicitly says this is the best starting point for any question about school, which gives strong usage context. However, it does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer that granular siblings like wilma_schedule or wilma_upcoming_exams exist for focused queries.

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