get_trainer_attendance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only states the output (attendance and fill-rate) and allowed periods, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what the response format looks like. No side effects or caveats are disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and period scope immediately. There is no wasted wording. It is appropriately front-loaded, though its brevity sacrifices detail that might be necessary for full comprehension.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description could be expected to explain the meaning of 'fill-rate' and how to specify a trainer, which it does not. The tool might return aggregated data, but no information is provided about the nature of the output or any default behavior beyond 'week' in the schema. Overall, the description is minimal and leaves important questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'period' accepts 'day' or 'week', which adds value beyond the schema's default. However, it does not explain what 'trainer' expects (e.g., ID, name), nor does it elaborate on any other constraints. The parameter semantics are only partially addressed.

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 the tool returns attendance and fill-rate for a trainer, and specifies that the period is either 'day' or 'week'. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_class_performance or get_revenue_insights, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only mentions the period options ('day' or 'week') without context on which scenario warrants this tool. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so an agent might struggle to decide when this is the appropriate choice.

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