aula_get_daily_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It accurately indicates a read operation ('Get') and describes the returned content, but it does not mention authentication requirements, data freshness, timezone behavior, or any other potential side effects. Basic but not rich.

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 directly states the action and the included items. It is concise without unnecessary words, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. The low complexity means the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 tool's function: retrieving today's daily overview for a child, listing the specific content (attendance, check-in/out times, notes). This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle posts, messages, calendar, etc.

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 phrase 'for your child' implies the intended use context (parent accessing child's daily overview), which is clear enough for selecting the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the explicit exclusion guidance that would earn a 5.

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