Absence and registrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds that results are aggregates ('counts') combined with full per-entry detail including date, lesson and remark, plus active measures such as detention — useful return-shape context, though nothing on latency, permissions or volume.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource scope and then the contents; every clause carries information. The em-dash enumeration is long but readable and free of 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 usefully itemizes what comes back (counts, per-entry date/lesson/remark, active measures), which is what an agent needs to decide if this answers the question. The leerlingId requirement when multiple children are linked is covered by the schema, not the description, which is acceptable but leaves a small gap.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and the periode enum values. The phrase 'school year (or current grading period)' loosely glosses the periode choice but adds no syntax or default beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource scope (absence and registration records) and enumerates the record types returned: unexcused/excused absence, late, removed from class, homework not done, materials missing, plus active measures. That is enough to tell it apart from siblings like homework or grades, though the head is a noun phrase with no explicit retrieve verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is framed as the source of attendance/registration data for a school year or grading period, which hints at when to call it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. homework for assignments vs. absence for missed homework).

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