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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description explains the exact inactivity criteria, the meaning of `days`, the cohort scoping behavior, and that course drafts are excluded. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model of what the tool computes.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core definition and followed by scoping and exclusion details. Every sentence adds value and no unnecessary text is present.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the definition, parameter semantics, scope behavior, interpretation guidance, and edge cases like drafts. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for both parameters. It clearly explains `days` as the inactivity threshold and `cohort_id` as an optional cohort filter, including behavior when omitted. Both parameters are fully compensated for.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing students who have been inactive for more than `days` days, with a precise definition of inactivity. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by framing this as a curator-facing address list rather than a progress or evaluation tool.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool, including how `cohort_id` scopes the query and that without it the entire school is included. It also warns that this is not a student evaluation, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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