Get student list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Return all students') but does not clarify whether 'with remaining leave balance' filters the result set or simply includes the balance field. It also omits details on ordering, pagination, or response format, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb 'Return,' and contains no wasteful phrasing, allowing an agent to parse it quickly.

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, parameterless read tool, the description covers the core purpose but leaves a key ambiguity about whether 'with remaining leave balance' filters the returned students or is just an included attribute. With no output schema or annotations to clarify behavior, an agent may not know the exact response structure, so a mid-range score is warranted.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides complete coverage (vacuously 100%). The description does not need to document parameter syntax, making the baseline of 4 appropriate. No additional parameter-related information is 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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource 'all students' with a qualifying phrase 'with remaining leave balance.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_student_details (likely a single-student lookup) and approve_leave (a mutation). Minor ambiguity exists about whether the qualifier filters students or includes a field, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_student_details for individual lookups or approve_leave for leave approvals, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Agents must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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