Карточка ученика

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already convey that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return content (contacts, contracts, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral details like error handling, response shape, or potential variability. Since annotations cover the main safety trait, the added value is modest.

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 a single front-loaded sentence, efficiently packing the resource type and content list with zero filler. It follows a clear pattern—key term first, then comma-separated details—making it easy to scan.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, no output schema, and readOnlyHint provided, the description adequately tells the agent what data to expect. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens if the student is not found (e.g., empty response or error), but given the simplicity, it does not warrant a 5.

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 100% (the sole parameter student_id is described as 'id ученика'). The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so it remains only adequate; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents it fully.

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 tool retrieves a student's detailed card, listing specific components (contacts, subject, tags, contracts, payments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_students (a list) and other get_* tools (get_lead, get_teacher) by referencing a unique resource and content 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 description implies usage for fetching a single student's full profile, contrasting with listing tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or references to siblings.

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