learnus_get_video_attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that returned attendance is 'canonical' rather than inferred from titles, but says nothing about freshness/caching behavior (despite the refresh param) or failure modes for unknown IDs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then what it is not for. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned concepts (completion, viewing progress, attendance target, attendance status) and covers all three parameters indirectly. It could say a bit more about error behavior for an unknown videoId, but it is adequate for calling the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so courseId, videoId and refresh are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit to return the course report' behavior. The description's phrase 'for a course or one known video' merely restates what the schema already conveys, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Gets canonical completion, viewing progress, attendance target and attendance status') with a precise scope ('for a course or one known video'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like learnus_list_videos, which enumerates videos rather than reporting attendance for one.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('Use when the user asks whether a specific course video was watched, completed or counted for attendance') plus two explicit exclusions (not for playing a video, not for inferring attendance from a title). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool to route to, so it falls just under the top band.

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