Exam dossier (SE)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one behavior beyond the schema: it reports when the child has no exam dossier yet, which tells the agent how to interpret a sparse result rather than assuming missing data. The required leerlingId condition for multiple children is documented in the schema.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the dossier scope and its contents, then the usage routing. It is compact and every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical jargon (PTA/SE) and packed list of returned items make it a touch dense to parse in one read.

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 does the work of explaining what comes back: per-subject averages, individual results, upcoming tests, and test-type averages. The only gap is that it does not mention result shape or ordering, but for a read-only overview that is minor.

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 both parameters (examenjaar defaulting to latest, leerlingId required with multiple children) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource (school-exam dossier, PTA/SE) and enumerates exactly what it returns: per-subject SE average, all SE results, upcoming tests, and test-type averages. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling grades_latest, which it names and contrasts.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for exam-year progress and upcoming SE tests, and names the alternative (grades_latest with dossier=examen) with the condition that selects it (only the newest SE results). Both a when-to-use and a when-to-use-something-else are given.

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