list_account_learners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly identifies this as a read-only GET operation and explains where filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values go. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination defaults, but the output schema covers return shape, so the gaps are not severe.

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?

Two short sentences carry the full definition: the first states the purpose, the second gives the HTTP call and parameter routing. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 generic list wrapper, the description is largely complete: the endpoint identifies the required route ID, the parameter placement guidance is clear, and the output schema handles return value documentation. It could be improved by naming the actual query parameters and explicitly distinguishing it from `list_learners`, but those are minor given the generic schema.

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%, and the schema uses generic `additionalProperties` objects. The description partially compensates by telling the agent that `path_params` holds route IDs and `query` holds filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values, but it does not enumerate the exact parameter names or formats, leaving significant inference required.

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 and resource: 'List learners in an account' and backs it with the exact endpoint `GET /accounts/{accountId}/learners`. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `list_learners` and `list_assignment_learners` by showing the account-level scope.

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 account-scoped wording and endpoint give clear context for when to use this tool, and the instruction to put route IDs in `path_params` clarifies the expected invocation shape. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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