portal_report_absence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the operation is for 'future (upcoming)' absences, which is a temporal constraint, but does not disclose side effects, whether it creates a record, whether it can be modified/deleted later, or any permission/approval process. For a tool that reports an absence (likely a write action), important behavioral details are missing.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and includes the key distinction of day vs lesson. It could be slightly more structured by mentioning the date range aspect, but it is efficient and clear.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (3 required) with 100% schema coverage, but no output schema and no annotations. The description provides the core purpose but does not explain return values, validation rules, or the relationship to sibling portal_excuse_absence. Given the moderate complexity (date range, mode, reason) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral and alternative guidance.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'by day or by lesson' maps to the mode enum, which the schema already lists. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not add details like date format or optionality that are not in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Report') and the resource ('a future (upcoming) absence') with a scope qualifier ('by day or by lesson'). It distinguishes itself from sibling portal_excuse_absence by focusing on future absences, but does not explicitly name that sibling. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 implies usage context: it is for future absences, which hints at when to use it versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling portal_excuse_absence, which appears related. Since the description provides a clear context (future absences) but no explicit exclusions or alternatives, it earns a 3.

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