get_attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or whether absence reasons are included. With annotations covering the core traits, a 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't contradict but also doesn't enhance beyond 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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it lacks any structured breakdown of behavior or parameters. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency and clarity.

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 read-only tool with complete parameter schema, the description is mostly adequate but misses return value expectations. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left unaware of what the response will contain (e.g., list of per-day statuses). The absence of any note about pagination or limit behavior also leaves a gap. Overall, it is minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (student_id, date_from, date_to, limit) are already documented with types and explanations. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying a date range. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool retrieves a child's attendance for a date range, which clearly identifies the verb (frekwencja as fetch attendance) and resource (child's attendance). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_grades or get_timetable because attendance is a distinct concept. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb, so it could be slightly more directive.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related tools. An agent would need to infer from the name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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