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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds only the raw REST path (GET /v1/Contacts/authorized/{studentId}) and nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or what the returned contacts look like — negligible value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short fragments, tightly front-loaded with no filler; every word is relevant. Slight redundancy in restating the same resource twice (phrase + endpoint path), which is only marginally useful for API mapping.

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-only lookup with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It omits, however, whether the response is a list or a single object, what happens when a student has no authorized contacts, and how the returned entries relate to jackrabbit_get_contact.

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% and the single student_id parameter is documented with a description and integer bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's '{studentId}' merely restates the schema field and adds no format, lookup, or validation guidance beyond it.

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 names the specific resource (contacts authorized to pick up a student) and scopes it to one student, which implicitly distinguishes it from the broader jackrabbit_list_contacts and from jackrabbit_get_contact. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name: call it when you need the pickup-authorization list for a known student. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of siblings like jackrabbit_list_contacts or jackrabbit_get_contact, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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