Children

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds real value by enumerating the shape of the returned data (profile, school, placement, portal sections), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention auth requirements or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One sentence of content plus one routing sentence, with the return contents front-loaded and the sibling pointer last. No filler, though the first sentence is a dense run-on of field lists.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing the categories of data returned. Combined with annotation coverage of the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only edge-case behavior (empty lists, permissions) is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies the call is unfiltered for the authenticated context.

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?

Names the resource (linked children) and enumerates precisely what it carries: profile fields, school data, current placement, and visible portal sections. An agent can distinguish it from 'whoami' without opening either schema, though the description lacks a leading verb such as 'Retrieve'.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'Use whoami when you only need leerling ids.' That is clear decision guidance. It does not state broader exclusions (e.g. when a parent context is unavailable), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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