ic_list_attendance_events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that enrollmentID is auto-resolved from the student record and by disclosing the event fields returned. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or rate limits, but for a read-only list this is a minor omission.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the first states the tool's core purpose, the second describes the output content, and the third covers key behaviors and filtering. There is no filler, tautology, or unnecessary repetition of annotation data.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by naming the key event fields (code, description, excuse reason, comments). It also clarifies the auto-resolution behavior and available filters. Minor missing details like default date range and ordering do not block an agent from calling it correctly.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description reinforces the meaning of since/until and excusedOnly but adds little beyond what the schema states. No new parameter-level insight is provided beyond restating filter intent.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('individual attendance events'), enumerates the event types (absences, tardies, early releases), and scopes it to a single student. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ic_list_attendance by emphasizing event-level detail.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool when you need student-level attendance events with codes, excuse reasons, and comments, and it tells the caller how to filter via since/until and excusedOnly. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when a sibling like ic_list_attendance should be preferred.

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