Get College Documents

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false annotations: it explains that an unopened mandatory document blocks every Lea tool, that opening must happen in Omnivox by the student, and that opening is recorded on the student file. That audit/permission consequence is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the read-only constraint and its consequence, then the invocation trigger. Every sentence carries new information — no restatement of the title or the annotations.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is scope and consequence — both are covered (document categories, the blocking behavior, the fact that it returns names only). An agent can call this correctly without further information.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the input schema. The description correctly focuses its words on scope and consequences instead of inventing parameter detail.

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+resource ('List the official documents the college has sent to the student') and enumerates the document types (admission letters, enrollment confirmations, notices, acknowledgments). It distinguishes itself from get-course-documents only implicitly via 'the college has sent' vs a course context; naming that sibling explicitly would remove the last ambiguity.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Use it when another tool reports a mandatory college document block.' It also implies the when-not — this tool only names the document, so opening requires the student to act in Omnivox (or a link tool). No explicit alternative is named for opening, which keeps it short of a 5.

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