portal_attendance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a non-mutating read operation via 'Get' and adds rough temporal orientation for some views ('retroactive', 'forward by day/lesson'). However, it does not disclose what each view actually returns, any scoping, pagination, or output structure, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and resource, and the view list is efficient and scannable. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition, though the terseness occasionally comes at the cost of 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 one-parameter read tool, this is nearly adequate: all view options and the default are visible, and the general output category is stated. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent cannot reliably predict how the view outputs differ or when the sibling absence-submission tools should be used instead.

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 100%: the single 'view' parameter is documented with enum values and a default, so the description does not need to restate it. The parentheticals add a little extra meaning beyond the schema, but they do not fully explain each enum value or its output, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Get attendance records and statistics') and enumerates the six views, so an agent knows what domain and mode the tool operates in. It does not explicitly differentiate this read-only attendance tool from siblings like portal_excuse_absence or portal_report_absence, so the last bit of distinguishing context is missing.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided. The parenthetical labels hint at some semantic differences, but the description never tells an agent when to choose portal_attendance over the sibling absence tools or how to pick among 'report', 'report-lesson', 'stats', etc.

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