schoolpass_list_dismissal_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds that the tool returns ids and that these form the vocabulary for changes, which is useful but not a rich behavioral disclosure (no mention of ordering, pagination, or error cases). With annotations handling the core traits, 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource first, then provides clarifying examples and purpose. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what it returns (locations with ids) and why it matters (the vocabulary for dismissal changes). No additional information is needed to invoke it correctly. The simplicity of the tool makes this 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the ids represent (the vocabulary for changes), which goes slightly beyond the empty schema. No parameter-specific guidance is needed, so the score remains at the baseline.

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'), the resource ('the school's dismissal locations'), and provides concrete examples (car line, bus, aftercare, walkers). It explicitly mentions returning ids and frames the output as 'the vocabulary a dismissal change refers to,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that submit or cancel changes. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by stating the output is the vocabulary a dismissal change refers to, signaling that this tool should be called before submitting a dismissal change to obtain valid ids. It does not explicitly name alternatives like schoolpass_submit_dismissal_change, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to use it. No exclusion criteria are given, hence not a 5.

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