get_day_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the discovery-first default behavior, the full=True escape hatch, and the section-isolation contract (a failed section returns {'ok': false, 'error': ...} without failing the report). It does not state auth/permission requirements or rate limits, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the section list, then bulleted conditions for each parameter mode; every bullet carries distinct routing information. The section enumeration is long but earns its place by telling the agent exactly what is aggregated.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it explains return semantics (per-school child index vs full report vs logged-in account report) and the degradation behavior on section failure. It stops short of describing the concrete report schema, but given the isolation contract that is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for four of five params: date_str (default today), name/student_id (student selection, cross-school unless subdomain scopes it), subdomain (scoping), and full (full report per child instead of index). Only minor ambiguity remains, e.g. the exact name vs student_id precedence.

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 composite action (one-call daily school report for a date) and enumerates the exact sections it aggregates (timetable, substitutions, grades, meals, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the many sibling section tools by saying it 'composes the individual section tools' so the agent needn't fire 8-10 calls.

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 explicit branching conditions: with name/student_id it reports for that student; omitted for a parent it returns a lightweight per-school child index (discovery-first); omitted for student/teacher it uses the logged-in account; full=True builds the full report for every child. This is precisely the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs against siblings.

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