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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful domain context about what these records are (pre-student trial assessments waiting to be attached), but it does not describe the return shape, ordering, or whether the list is complete.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument tool, though it could front-load an explicit verb like 'List' to improve scanning.

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 no-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description defines the set being returned well enough to call it. It could add return-value detail, but the missing pieces are minor given annotations and the absence of inputs.

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?

No parameters are defined, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; it appropriately stays silent on nonexistent inputs.

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 identifies the resource as assessments completed before a person became a student (trial class) and waiting to be attached. It is specific about the state of the assessments, but it never uses an explicit action verb and does not contrast with list_assessments or list_archived_assessments.

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?

It implies these are assessments awaiting attachment, but does not explicitly say when to call it versus list_assessments or attach_assessment_to_student. The trial-class context gives a usable cue, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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