Ученики

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety and open-world nature. The description adds that the result includes parent contacts and subject, which is content context but not behavioral detail like pagination, sorting, or error behavior. With annotations in place, the added value is moderate.

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 crisp sentences, the first stating the core function and the second the key usage distinction. No filler, and the critical routing hint is front-loaded after the purpose.

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?

While the description conveys the purpose and the included fields, it does not specify the full return structure (e.g., student name, contact details) or any pagination/limitation behavior. The lack of an output schema means this context would be helpful, but the tool is simple enough that the description may be adequate for basic selection.

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?

The sole parameter tag_ids is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with a description 'id тегов через запятую'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool lists students with parent contacts and subject, which is a specific verb, resource, and content detail. It clearly distinguishes itself from the search tool by noting that search is for finding specific people by name/phone, so an agent can tell when to use which.

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 points to the search tool when looking for a specific person by name or phone, giving a clear exclusion. However, it does not mention alternatives like get_student for retrieving a single student's details or list_teachers for analogous lists, so it covers only one routing case.

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