aula_get_meebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states what the tool returns but does not disclose authentication requirements, read-only nature, or any error conditions. As a simple getter, it is adequate but not rich, scoring a 3.

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 contains all key information with no wasted words. The description is concise, front-loaded, and easily understood.

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?

Given the low complexity (zero params, no output schema), the description provides enough detail about the contents (lesson plans, goals, reading). It could mention the return format or potential absence of data, but for a simple getter it is essentially 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds context about what is retrieved, which is sufficient without needing parameter details.

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: getting MeeBook weekly plans and book lists for a child's class. It specifies the resource (MeeBook) and the content (lesson plans, learning goals, reading), distinguishing it from sibling tools like daily overview or posts.

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 clear usage context (when you need weekly plans or reading assignments), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Since the purpose is obvious from the resource type, it earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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