Ver apuntados a una clase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes the role-based restriction and the distinct behavior for client accounts (returning an informative note). This goes beyond the basic purpose and adds useful behavioral context, though it does not detail other behaviors like error handling or output structure.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence states the primary purpose, and a second sentence provides a critical usage note. Every word earns its place, and the important role restriction is highlighted clearly without unnecessary padding.

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 has five optional parameters and no output schema, the description delivers the essential context: what the tool does and who can use it. It does not explain how to specify which class (leaving that to the schema), but the role restriction is crucial and well covered. This is reasonably complete for a read-only listing tool.

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 all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline score is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, leaving parameter interpretation to the structured schema.

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 and resource: 'Lista quién se ha apuntado a una clase' (lists who signed up for a class). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_classes, book_class, cancel_class, and list_boxes, as it focuses specifically on attendees.

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 a clear when-not scenario: it notes that only coach/administrator accounts can view the list, while client accounts receive an informative note instead. This gives practical usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or contrast with siblings.

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