pup_list_non_school_days

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the semantic meaning of the returned data (holidays, closures, weekends) and the default-diff behavior. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or how the two modes interact, but with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no filler; the two functional modes are packed in without waste. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, though the phrasing is grammatically tangled ('Dates a plan cannot be set for at a school').

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the core data semantics adequately. It stops short of clarifying the returned structure or the exact trigger conditions for the optional range mode, leaving some inference to the agent.

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%, and the start_date schema field already states 'with end_date, also return dates that differ from the default' – the description largely repeats this rather than adding syntax or behavior beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new parameter meaning.

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 identifies the resource well by enumerating what the dates represent (holidays, closures, weekends) and the second mode (range dates differing from defaults). However, it opens with an awkward noun phrase ('Dates a plan cannot be set for at a school') and never states the verb 'list/return', leaving the action somewhat implicit. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like pup_get_default_plans or pup_list_plans.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The agent must infer from the name and the 'differs from student defaults' clause that this is relevant to plan setup, but nothing states when this tool should be chosen over pup_get_default_plans or pup_list_plans.

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