list_assignment_enrollment_extras

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only operation through 'List' and the explicit `GET` method, and it discloses how parameters are routed. It does not describe pagination defaults, result shape, or side effects, but none are expected for a simple list endpoint.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, followed by concise parameter placement guidance. The second sentence is slightly awkward ('include values in query') but earns its place because the schema provides no parameter 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The endpoint and parameter placement instructions are enough to attempt a basic call, but the description leaves exact query parameter naming and the purpose of the `body` field unclear. For a generic-schema list tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 is generic open-object slots with no property documentation. The description compensates by explaining that `path_params` holds route IDs and `query` holds filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values. This is helpful but still vague: exact parameter names and formats are not specified, and the `body` parameter is not addressed.

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 clearly states the operation ('List assignment enrollment extras') and gives the exact endpoint path, which makes the resource unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling `list_assignment_enrollment_conditions`, but the resource name and endpoint differentiate it well enough.

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 description provides actionable guidance on where to place parameters: route IDs in `path_params` and filtering/pagination/sorting/include values in `query`. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `list_assignment_enrollment_conditions` or `list_assignment_learners`, so selection guidance is only implied.

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