schoolpass_list_pickup_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the date default, the required student id, and the types of changes returned (early pickups, late arrivals, carpool moves). This gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose and examples in the first sentence and a critical requirement in the second. It is front-loaded and free of filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, date default, and the required student id. It might benefit from hinting at the structure of the response (e.g., array of change objects), but given the simplicity and the read-only nature, this is not a critical omission. The overall context is adequate for correct invocation.

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%: both parameters have detailed descriptions (date format and source of student_id). The description adds nothing beyond repeating the requirement for a student id, which is already in the schema. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pickup / dismissal changes for a student'), includes concrete examples (early pickups, late arrivals, carpool moves), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like submit or cancel by focusing on listing. It is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 states a prerequisite ('Requires a student id') and a default behavior (date defaults to today), which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives such as schoolpass_submit_dismissal_change or schoolpass_cancel_dismissal_change, nor does it state any when-not-to-use conditions. The usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with siblings.

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