list_volunteer_hours

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that the tool returns logged entries with specific fields and is clearly a read/list operation, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, authorization/ownership limits, or explicitly confirm that no mutations occur. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but leaves gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a useful list of displayed fields and a minimal args block, with no verbose filler or unnecessary background. Every sentence contributes directly to the basic behavior.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient but still misses minor context: how to source school_id, whether the list is ordered, and how large the result set could be. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, so the remaining gaps are modest.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats 'school_id: School ID' which adds essentially nothing beyond the schema's property name and type. It does not say where to get the school_id, how to ensure it belongs to the current user, or whether the field carries any further meaning.

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 and resource: 'List your logged volunteer hours for a school.' It also identifies the key output fields (month, activity type, notes, hours), and the resource is distinct enough from all sibling list_* tools that an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 makes the main use case clear—listing someone's logged volunteer hours for a school—but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisite steps (e.g., getting school_id via list_schools), and no exclusions. This is adequate but not a complete usage guide.

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