pup_list_non_school_days

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds substantive behavior: the result includes holidays, closures, and weekends, and optionally includes range dates that differ from student defaults. It does not mention output format or ordering, but it provides a meaningful semantic contract beyond 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds the optional behavior. It is not verbose, though the two behaviors are packed together in a slightly dense way that could be clearer if separated.

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, the description is adequate: it explains the main result and the optional mode. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return shape or what happens when no date range is provided, such as whether all non-school days are returned or only some default window.

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 the baseline is 3. The description echoes the optional start_date/end_date behavior by referencing 'dates in a range' and 'student defaults,' but it does not add new parameter syntax, formats, or details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (a school) and the semantic content: dates a plan cannot be set for, namely holidays, closures, and weekends, plus an optional mode for dates differing from student defaults. This differentiates it from sibling tools about students, plans, transport, and schools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists.'

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 context is implied: use this when you need dates when plans cannot be set at a school or when checking date-range differences against defaults. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions among the sibling tools.

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