Get student details by ID

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the happy-path return (student and leave requests) but does not mention error handling, whether all leave requests are included or only specific ones, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence (six words) that efficiently conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and a well-described parameter schema, the description is partially complete. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should elaborate on the return shape (e.g., what fields are included in the student object and the leave requests), and it does not mention alternative tools or edge cases, so it falls short of full completeness.

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 input schema fully documents the 'id' parameter with a clear description and example ('Student ID, e.g. S001'), and coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one student and their leave requests'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_students (which lists multiple) and approve_leave (which modifies leave status). The title reinforces the 'by ID' aspect.

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 the tool should be used when fetching a single student's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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