list_enrollments

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

Despite readOnly/idempotent annotations already declaring safety, the description adds significant behavioral context: pagination is one page at a time, filter_active means 'active AND not expired', output has has_more/next_cursor semantics, requires the enrollments:read OAuth scope, and a hard API limitation on per-lesson data. This goes well beyond the annotations and is not contradicted by them.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, uses short labeled paragraphs for pagination, filters, scope, and limitation. Every sentence carries operational information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details. It is dense but well-organized.

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?

Covers the most important operational context: pagination with has_more/next_cursor, interpretation of filter_active, OAuth scope, and the course-level limitation. It is slightly incomplete on date parameter formats and the relationship between filters, but the existence of an output schema and self-explanatory property names mitigate the gaps. Given the tool's 13 optional parameters, this is a strong but not perfect description.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains filter_active, filter_progress_status (including exact accepted values), filter_domains, and include (accepted values). However, it leaves several parameters unexplained—page_size, page_cursor, filter_course_id, filter_student_id, filter_enrolled_gte/lte, filter_completed_gte/lte, filter_student_email—so the agent still lacks format/semantics for a majority of the 13 parameters.

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 opens with a clear purpose: 'Find who is enrolled in what, and how far they have got.' It then states it returns one row per enrolment, and explicitly scopes it to course-level progress, distinguishing it from per-lesson progress tools. This gives an agent a clear, differentiated understanding of the operation.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: check has_more and use next_cursor before drawing conclusions; omit filter_active for auditing; include it for current access; and warns not to claim per-lesson progress. These are concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules, plus a caveat about a limitation.

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