getClassVisits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data (clients who booked/attended, sign-in status, late cancellations, service info) and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or behavior on invalid classId, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a concise list of the return contents. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently structured and well-sized for its purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains what is returned and covers the main behavior. It lacks guidance on when to use lastModifiedDate or edge cases like invalid classId, but the schema provides parameter details. It could benefit from explicit usage alternatives, but overall it is sufficient for a basic read operation.

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% (both classId and lastModifiedDate have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema; 'for a specific class' merely reiterates classId's purpose. It does not elaborate on lastModifiedDate semantics, but the schema already covers it adequately.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('client visits/attendance for a specific class'). It distinguishes from sibling getClientVisits by scoping to a class and lists specific returned data (sign-in status, late cancellations, service information), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by saying 'for a specific class' and requiring a classId, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like getClientVisits, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., for client-level visits use getClientVisits). It gives clear context but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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