get_student

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the exact fields returned (name, email, inactive status) and the required OAuth scope students:read, which an agent needs to know before calling.

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 short sentences each earn their place: the core action, a pointer to the relevant sibling tool, and the required OAuth scope. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the identifier semantics, the key alternative usage, and the authentication requirement. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not the description's responsibility.

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 0%, leaving the sole 'id' parameter otherwise unexplained. The description compensates by specifying that the id is the 'Skilljar id', distinguishing it from other possible identifier types and telling the agent exactly what value to pass.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one learner'), and the identifier ('Skilljar id'). It distinguishes itself from list_students and list_enrollments by making the singular, by-id lookup explicit.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use list_enrollments with filter_student_id when enrollment details are needed, which is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that signal. It does not explicitly contrast with list_students for the plural/discovery case, but the singular 'one learner' phrasing implies that boundary.

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