ic_list_school_days

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states the output is grouped by term, returns one entry per enrollment, and includes comments like 'Teacher Workday' or 'Spring Break'. This provides useful context about the shape and content of the response without relying solely on the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose and output structure; the second sentence offers a practical parameter hint. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the response shape (one entry per enrollment, term boundaries, school days, comments). It also mentions the since/until filter. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or pagination, but for a list tool with clear output description, it is fairly complete.

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 80% (4/5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal new meaning for parameters, only reinforcing the since/until usage. It does not compensate for the missing district description, and it adds no details about the view or studentId parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('a student's school days'), and adds specifics about grouping by term and content (term boundaries, school days, comments). This distinguishes it from all sibling ic_list_* tools, which cover different domains like assessments, fees, or attendance.

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?

The description provides usage context ('List a student's school days') and a parameter tip ('Use since/until to narrow the range'), but it does not explicitly address when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling covers the same domain, the usage is implied, but explicit exclusionary guidance is missing.

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