list_participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully discloses the return content (participants with roles and assigned groups), which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or size of the result set.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the population, and the payload. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema documentation and annotations present, the definition covers purpose and return shape adequately. It could mention result volume or ambiguity handling explicitly, but the schema already conveys the latter.

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%, and the course_id and role parameters are fully documented in the schema (including enum values and the ambiguity behavior). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista los participantes de una materia') and narrows scope to students, teachers, roles and groups. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_courses or get_course_contents, but the operation itself is 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?

Use case is implied — call it when you need the roster of a given course — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as list_courses for obtaining IDs. The agent must infer the calling context.

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