attendance_daily_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one non-obvious behavior: results incorporate current timetable changes rather than the static schedule, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose what happens when no schedule exists for the date, whether the operation is reliably read-only, or any indication of the response shape — gaps that matter more because there is no output schema.

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?

A single 19-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then scope, then behavioral nuance. Every clause carries distinct information — person type, date granularity, and timetable-change awareness — with no filler or redundancy. This is a model of efficient description writing.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, scoping, and the key timetable-changes behavior. The main gap is the absence of any statement about response shape or empty-result behavior, which is more salient given there is no output schema and no annotations; however, the resource name 'daily schedule' makes the return value reasonably self-evident.

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 both parameters are already documented (pk = 'Person ID (staff or student)', date = 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format'). The description essentially restates these concepts ('a person (staff or student)', 'a specific date') without adding formats, constraints, examples, or edge-case guidance. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies because 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 a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('daily schedule'), and precise scope ('for a person (staff or student)', 'for a specific date'). The phrase 'reflecting current timetable changes' adds a distinguishing nuance that separates it from a static schedule tool. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts sibling tools like changed_timetable or attendance_bell_schedule, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the usage scenario — you need one person's schedule for one date — and nothing more. It provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions; with overlapping siblings like changed_timetable, attendance_schedule_groups, and direct_attendance_student_overview nearby, the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice versus those. No when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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