Homework / study planner

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world call. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: grouping by day, default range of today plus 6 days, a maximum of 42 days, and attachment behavior including empty bijlagen/externeMaterialen and the lesmateriaal flag.

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 then layers in return fields, date limits, and attachment behavior. It is dense but mostly earns its length; the closing clause about there being 'no separate material call' is the least clear and slightly muddies an otherwise efficient structure.

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?

Given a complex, multi-field read tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what is returned and how attachments and deadlines are represented. It is not fully complete because it omits explicit sibling routing and contains a potentially misleading statement about material calls, but it covers the essential behavior an agent needs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics for the date parameters by stating the default range and the 42-day maximum, though it does not add anything about leerlingId beyond what the schema already says.

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 resource and scope: every studiewijzer item for a date range, grouped by day, including hand-in deadlines. It is specific about the returned fields, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as assignments or study_material.

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 implied by the phrase 'What to do and learn on which day' and by the default date range, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of assignments, assignment_detail, or study_material. The note about download_attachment and the claim that 'there is no separate material call' gives some routing guidance, though the latter is potentially confusing given the study_material sibling.

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