Get member attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint and the date-range scoping; it says nothing about pagination behavior (maxPages is capped at 50) or the volume/format of results returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with the endpoint first and the scope second; no filler. Very terse, but every clause carries meaning.

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 list tool with no output schema and strong schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient, but an agent gets no hint about result volume, pagination defaults, or how this differs from the class-visit sibling.

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 80%, so the schema already documents siteId, startDate/endDate formats, and maxPages page size. The description's 'date range' phrasing adds nothing beyond the required clientId plus date parameters already described in the schema.

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 verb+resource: retrieving a client's visit history (class check-ins) over a date range, and names the underlying endpoint. It is distinguishable from mbo_get_class_visits by being client-scoped, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative siblings like mbo_get_class_visits for looking at visits from the class side. The date-range phrase implies context but gives no selection criteria.

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